DETAILED ACTION
Claims 35-37, 40-44, 46-48, and 56-63 were rejected in the Office Action mailed on 06/02/2025.
Applicant filed a response, amended claims 35-37, 40-44, 46, 48, 57, 59-63, cancelled claims 47, 56, and 58, and added new claim 64.
Claims 35-37, 40-44, 46, 48, 57, 59-63, and 64 are pending.
Claims 35-37, 40-44, 46, 48, 57, 59-63, and 64 are rejected.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 35, 37, 46, 48, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khanukov et al. (Forming of Collagen Monofil by the Dry Method) (Khanukov).
Regarding claims 35, 37, 46, and 48
Khanukov teaches a monofilament formed directly from collagen dispersions and a plasticizer. The dispersions were produced by treating raw hide with calcium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid followed by separation into fibers. The collagen dispersion is tanned with chromium compounds. The monofilament possesses an elongation of 11.6%. See, e.g., pages 493-494.
Given the monofilament of Khanukov is formed from a dispersion of collagen fibers, it follows the monofilament is a reconstructed filament. Since the collagen fibers are separated into fibers from the raw hide, it follows the collagen fibers corresponds to mechanically subdivided collagen raw material and natural collagen fibrils.
Regarding claim 57
Khanukov teaches all of the limitations of claim 35 above.
Although Khanukov does explicitly teaches the filament is based on a fibrous suspension comprising mechanically subdivided natural protein fibers, water, and at least one additive as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Khanukov meets the requirements of the claimed product (i.e., mechanically subdivided protein raw material and at least one additive), as discussed above, Khanukov clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
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 59, 61, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Khanukov et al. (Forming of Collagen Monofil by the Dry Method) (Khanukov), as applied in claim 35 above, and further in view of Marga et al. (US 2016/0376737) (Marga).
Regarding claim 59
Khanukov teaches all of the limitations of claim 35 above, however does not explicitly teach the formation of a staple fiber.
With respect to the difference, Marga teaches collagen filaments are cut to form staple fibers. The staple fibers are baled for shipment to a yarn spinning facility or a non-woven processing facility. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0056], [0067], and [0072].
Marga and Khanukov are analogous art as they are both drawn to forming collagen fibers.
In light of the disclosure as provided by Marga, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form staple fibers from the filament of Khanukov in order to prepare the fibers for further non-woven or yarn processing, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 61
Khanukov teaches all of the limitations of claim 35 above, however does not explicitly teach the formation of a wool .
With respect to the difference, Marga teaches collagen filaments are cut to form staple fibers. The staple fibers are baled for shipment to a yarn spinning facility or a non-woven processing facility. To assure uniformity, several bales of protein staple fibers may be blended together. The fibers may then be “opened” to assure that there are no clumps of fibers and then the opened fibers are formed into a web. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0056], [0067], and [0072].
Marga and Khanukov are analogous art as they are both drawn to forming collagen fibers.
In light of the disclosure as provided by Marga, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form opened fiber bales, i.e., wool, from the collagen fibers of Khanukov, in order to prepare the fibers for further non-woven processing, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 63
Khanukov teaches all of the limitations of claim 35 above, however does not explicitly teach a yarn spun from staple fibers.
With respect to the difference, Marga teaches collagen filaments are cut to form staple fibers. The staple fibers are then spun into a yarn for a variety of non-woven manufacturing methods. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0056], [0067], and [0072].
Marga and Khanukov are analogous art as they are both drawn to forming collagen fibers.
In light of the disclosure of Marga, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a yarn spun from staple fibers from the filament of Khanukov, in order to produce a yarn for a variety of non-woven manufacturing methods with predictable success, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 60 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khanukov et al. (Forming of Collagen Monofil by the Dry Method) (Khanukov) in view of Marga et al. (US 2016/0376737) (Marga).
Regarding claims 60 and 62
Khanukov teaches a monofilament formed directly from collagen dispersions and a plasticizer. The dispersions were produced by treating raw hide with calcium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid followed by separation into fibers. The collagen dispersion is tanned. See, e.g., pages 493-494.
Given the monofilament of Khanukov is formed from a dispersion of collagen fibers, it follows the monofilament is a reconstructed filament. Since the collagen fibers are separated into fibers from the raw hide, it follows the collagen fibers corresponds to mechanically subdivided natural protein fibers and therefore natural protein fibrils.
Although Khanukov does not explicitly teach the natural protein fibrils comprise fibrils of tanned hides as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Khanukov meets the requirements of the claimed product, as discussed above, Khanukov clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Khanukov does not explicitly teach a plurality of staple fibers formed from the monofilament.
With respect to the difference, Marga teaches collagen filaments are cut to form staple fibers. The staple fibers are baled for shipment to a yarn spinning facility or a non-woven processing facility. To assure uniformity, several bales of protein staple fibers may be blended together. The fibers may then be “opened” to assure that there are no clumps of fibers and then the opened fibers are formed into a web. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0056], [0067], and [0072].
Marga and Khanukov are analogous art as they are both drawn to forming collagen fibers.
In light of the disclosure as provided by Marga, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form opened fiber bales, i.e., wool, from the collagen staple fibers cut from the monofilament of Khanukov, in order to prepare the fibers for further non-woven processing, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 35, 37, 40-41, 43-44, 46, 48, 57, 59, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poranen et al. (WO 2018115577A1) (Poranen) in view of Svit (GB1134668A).
It is noted that when utilizing WO 2018115577A1, the disclosure of the reference are based on US 2019/0301053 which is an English language equivalent of the reference.
Regarding claims 35, 37, 40-41, 48, and 64
Poranen teaches a filament comprising recycled textile waste fibers. The filament further includes a polysaccharide additive. Suitable polysaccharide additives include alginate, carboxymethyl cellulose, and starch. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0031], [0034-0037], [0046-0048], [0055-0063], and [0077-0078].
Poranen does not explicitly teach the presence of natural protein fibrils.
With respect to the difference, Svit teaches collagen fibers produced from tannery waste such as the hides tanned for leather, such as wet-blue tanned hides. The collagen fibers are produced by a mechanical disintegration of the wet-blue tanned hides. The collagen fibers are improved in cost as well as physical and mechanical properties and are suitable for known textile production. See, e.g., abstract, page 1, lines 14-31, page 1, line 55 – page 3, line 81, page 4, lines 24-50. Given the collagen fibers are produced by mechanical disintegration of tanned hides, it follows the collagen fibers corresponds to mechanically subdivided natural protein fibers and corresponds to fibrils of tanned hides.
Svit and Poranen are analogous art as they are both drawn to a recycled and re-used fibrous material.
In light of the disclosure of Svit, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use collagen fibers produced from tanned hides as the recycled textile waste fibers of Poranen, in order to form a recycled, re-utilized, and re-used monofilament with predictable success, as Svit teaches the collagen fibers are suitable for further processing using methods known in the textile industry, and provide improved physical and mechanical properties in addition to low cost, and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 198 (CCPA 1960).
Given the filament is made from natural collagen fibers and an additive, it follows the filament is reconstructed.
Regarding claim 43
Poranen further teaches the recycled collagen fibers comprise 1 to 50 wt.% of the filament and at most 15% by weight of alginate . Paragraphs [0046] and [0055-0056].
Regarding claim 44
Poranen further teaches the filament possesses a linear mass density-related tenacity of 5-25 cN/tex. Paragraphs [0011] and [0070] and claim 16. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claim 46
Poranen further teaches the filament possesses an elongation at break between 2 and 6%. Paragraph [0071]. It should be noted that in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The existence of overlapping or encompassing ranges shifts the burden to Applicant to show that his invention would not have been obvious. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Regarding claim 57
Although Poranen in view of Svit teaches the filament is based on a fibrous suspension comprising mechanically subdivided natural protein fibers, water, and at least one additive (see paragraphs [0035], [0046-0048], and [0055-0056]) as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that the filament of Poranen in view of Svit meets the requirements of the claimed product (i.e., reconstructed filament comprising mechanically subdivided natural protein fibers and at least one additive), Poranen in view of Svit clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Regarding claim 59
Poranen further teaches the filament is processed into shorter lengths. Paragraphs [0035] and [0084]. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a staple fiber by shortening the filament of Poranen in view of Svit, as staple fibers are a conventional fiber for the clothing industry, a known end use for the filament of Poranen in view of Svit, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Although Poranen in view of Svit expressly teaches the filament is shortened into a staple fiber, as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Poranen in view of Svit meets the requirements of the claimed product, Poranen in view of Svit clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poranen et al. (WO 2018115577A1) (Poranen) in view of Svit (GB1134668A), as applied in claim 35 above, and further in view of Islam et al. (US 2004/0102614) (Islam).
Regarding claim 42
Poranen in view of Svit teaches all of the limitations of claim 35 above, including the presence of additives, however does not explicitly teach the presence of carboxymethyl cellulose and polyethylene oxide.
With respect to the difference, Islam teaches protein fibers comprising carboxymethyl cellulose and polyethylene glycol/polyethylene oxide as a viscosity enhancer. See, e.g., abstract and paragraph [0143].
Islam and Poranen in view of Svit are analogous art as they are both drawn to fibers comprising additives.
In light of the disclosure of Islam, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use carboxymethyl cellulose and polyethylene glycol/polyethylene oxide as a viscosity enhancer in the filament of Poranen in view of Svit, in order to produce the filament with predictable success, as Islam teaches carboxymethyl cellulose and polyethylene glycol/polyethylene oxide are suitable for use as viscosity enhancers, and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 198 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 59 is alternatively, and claims 61 and 63 are, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poranen et al. (WO 2018115577A1) (Poranen) in view of Svit (GB1134668A), as applied in claim 35 above, and further in view of Marga et al. (US 2016/0376737) (Marga).
Regarding claim 59
Poranen in view of Svit teaches all of the limitations of claim 35 above, however does not explicitly teach the formation of a staple fiber.
With respect to the difference, Marga teaches collagen filaments are cut to form staple fibers. The staple fibers are baled for shipment to a yarn spinning facility or a non-woven processing facility. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0056], [0067], and [0072].
Marga and Poranen in view of Svit are analogous art as they are both drawn to filaments.
In light of the disclosure as provided by Marga, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form staple fibers from the filament of Poranen in view of Svit, in order to prepare the fibrous material for further non-woven or yarn processing, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 61
Poranen in view of Svit teaches all of the limitations of claim 35 above, however does not explicitly teach the formation of a wool .
With respect to the difference, Marga teaches collagen filaments are cut to form staple fibers. The staple fibers are baled for shipment to a yarn spinning facility or a non-woven processing facility. To assure uniformity, several bales of protein staple fibers may be blended together. The fibers may then be “opened” to assure that there are no clumps of fibers and then the opened fibers are formed into a web. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0056], [0067], and [0072].
Marga and Poranen in view of Svit are analogous art as they are both drawn to filaments.
In light of the disclosure as provided by Marga, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form opened fiber bales, i.e., wool, from the collagen filaments of Poranen in view of Svit, in order to prepare the fibrous material for further non-woven processing, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 63
Poranen in view of Svit teaches all of the limitations of claim 35 above, however does not explicitly teach a yarn spun from staple fibers.
With respect to the difference, Marga teaches collagen filaments are cut to form staple fibers. The staple fibers are then spun into a yarn for a variety of non-woven manufacturing methods. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0056], [0067], and [0072].
Marga and Poranen in view of Svit are analogous art as they are both drawn to filaments.
In light of the disclosure of Marga, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a yarn spun from staple fibers from the filament of Poranen in view of Svit, in order to produce a yarn for a variety of non-woven manufacturing methods with predictable success, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 35-37, 40, 43-44, 46, 48, 57, and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svit (GB1134668A in view of Zhang (US 2007/0186352) and Poranen et al. (WO 2018115577A1) (Poranen).
Regarding claims 35-37, 40, 43, 48, and 64
Svit teaches collagen fibers produced from tannery waste such as the hides tanned for leather, such as wet-blue tanned hides. The collagen fibers are produced by a mechanical disintegration of the wet-blue tanned hides. The collagen fibers are improved in cost as well as physical and mechanical properties and are suitable for known textile production. See, e.g., abstract, page 1, lines 14-31, page 1, line 55 – page 3, line 81, page 4, lines 24-50. Given the collagen fibers are produced by mechanical disintegration of tanned hides, it follows the collagen fibers corresponds to mechanically subdivided natural protein fibers and corresponds to fibrils of tanned hides.
Svit does not explicitly teach the fibers form a filament (A) or the presence of an additive (B).
With respect to the difference, Zhang (A) teaches a collagen filament comprising collagen fibers. The collagen fibers are made of wet-blue tanned hide. The filament is capable of forming a yarn possesses higher tensile strength and better abrasion resistance compared to natural fiber yarns and higher water absorption, more comfort, and better flame-retardant property than synthetic fiber yarns. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0005], [0007], [0009], [0015], [0022-0034], [0040].
Zhang and Svit are analogous art as they are both drawn to collagen fibers.
In light of the disclosure as provided by Zhang, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form a filament using the collagen fibers of Svit, in order to produce a collagen filament suitable for forming a yarn possessing higher tensile strength and better abrasion resistance compared to natural fiber yarns and higher water absorption, more comfort, and better flame-retardant property than synthetic fiber yarns, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the difference, Poranen (B) teaches a filament comprising recycled textile waste fibers. The filament further includes a polysaccharide additive in an amount between 0.1 to 15 wt.%. Suitable polysaccharide additives include alginate. Alginate may act as a binder to crosslink and enclose the fibers. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0031], [0034-0037], [0043], [0046-0048], [0055-0063], and [0077-0078].
Poranen and Svit in view of Zhang are analogous art as they are both drawn to fibers formed of recycled material.
In light of the motivation as provided by Poranen, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include alginate in an amount from 0.1 to 15 wt.% in the filament of Svit in view of Zhang, in order to bind and enclose the fibers, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Given the filament includes alginate in an amount from 0.1 to 15 wt.%, it follows the filament includes collagen fibers account for 85 to 99 wt.% of the collagen filament.
Given the filament of Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen is formed of the protein fibers, it follows the filament is a reconstructed filament.
Regarding claim 44
Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen teaches all of the limitations of claim 35 above.
Given that the structure and material of the filament of Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen is substantially identical to the reconstructed filament as used in the present invention, as set forth above, it is clear that the filament of Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen would intrinsically have a breaking strength of at least 6 cN/tex, wherein cN/tex is a unit for linear mass density-related tenacity, as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 46
Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen teaches all of the limitations of claim 35 above.
Given that the structure and material of the filament of Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen is substantially identical to the reconstructed filament as used in the present invention, as set forth above, it is clear that the filament of Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen would intrinsically have an elongation of at least 5%, the elongation being a percentage of a starting length of the filament, as presently claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 57
Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen teaches all of the limitations of claim 35 above.
Although Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen does not explicitly teach the filament is based on a fibrous suspension comprising mechanically subdivided natural protein fibers, water, and at least one additive as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen meets the requirements of the claimed product, i.e., filament comprising natural protein fibrils and an additive, Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen clearly meets the requirements of the present claim
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svit (GB1134668A) in view of Zhang (US 2007/0186352) and Poranen et al. (WO 2018115577A1) (Poranen), as applied in claim 35 above, and further in view of Islam et al. (US 2004/0102614) (Islam).
Regarding claims 41-42
Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen teaches all of the limitations of claim 35 above, including the presence of additives, however does not explicitly teach the presence of carboxymethyl cellulose and polyethylene oxide.
With respect to the difference, Islam teaches protein fibers comprising carboxymethyl cellulose and polyethylene glycol/polyethylene oxide as a viscosity enhancer. See, e.g., abstract and paragraph [0143].
Islam and Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen are analogous art as they are both drawn to fibers comprising additives.
In light of the disclosure of Islam, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use carboxymethyl cellulose and polyethylene glycol/polyethylene oxide as a viscosity enhancer in the filament of Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen, in order to produce the filament with predictable success, as Islam teaches carboxymethyl cellulose and polyethylene glycol/polyethylene oxide are suitable for use as viscosity enhancers, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 59, 61, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svit (GB1134668A) in view of Zhang (US 2007/0186352) and Poranen et al. (WO 2018115577A1) (Poranen), as applied in claim 35 above, and further in view of Marga et al. (US 2016/0376737) (Marga).
Regarding claim 59
Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen teaches all of the limitations of claim 35 above, however does not explicitly teach the formation of a staple fiber.
With respect to the difference, Marga teaches collagen filaments are cut to form staple fibers. The staple fibers are baled for shipment to a yarn spinning facility or a non-woven processing facility. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0056], [0067], and [0072].
Marga and Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen are analogous art as they are both drawn to forming collagen fibers.
In light of the disclosure as provided by Marga, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form staple fibers from the filament of Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen in order to prepare the fibers for further non-woven or yarn processing, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Although Svit in view of Zhang, Poranen, and Marga expressly teaches the filament is shortened into a staple fiber, as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. Thus, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113.
Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Svit in view of Zhang, Poranen, and Marga meets the requirements of the claimed product, Svit in view of Zhang, Poranen, and Marga clearly meets the requirements of the present claim.
Regarding claim 61
Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen teaches all of the limitations of claim 35 above, however does not explicitly teach the formation of a wool .
With respect to the difference, Marga teaches collagen filaments are cut to form staple fibers. The staple fibers are baled for shipment to a yarn spinning facility or a non-woven processing facility. To assure uniformity, several bales of protein staple fibers may be blended together. The fibers may then be “opened” to assure that there are no clumps of fibers and then the opened fibers are formed into a web. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0056], [0067], and [0072].
Marga and Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen are analogous art as they are both drawn to forming collagen fibers.
In light of the disclosure as provided by Marga, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form opened fiber bales, i.e., wool, from the collagen fibers of Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen, in order to prepare the fibers for further non-woven processing, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 63
Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen teaches all of the limitations of claim 35 above, however does not explicitly teach a yarn spun from staple fibers.
With respect to the difference, Marga teaches collagen filaments are cut to form staple fibers. The staple fibers are then spun into a yarn for a variety of non-woven manufacturing methods. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0056], [0067], and [0072].
Marga and Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen are analogous art as they are both drawn to forming collagen fibers.
In light of the disclosure of Marga, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a yarn spun from staple fibers from the filament of Svit in view of Zhang and Poranen, in order to produce a yarn for a variety of non-woven manufacturing methods with predictable success, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 60 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poranen et al. (WO 2018115577A1) (Poranen) in view of Svit (GB1134668A) and Marga et al. (US 2016/0376737) (Marga).
It is noted that when utilizing WO 2018115577A1, the disclosure of the reference are based on US 2019/0301053 which is an English language equivalent of the reference.
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of GB1134668A.
Regarding claims 60 and 62
Poranen teaches a filament comprising recycled textile waste fibers. The filament further includes a polysaccharide additive. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0031], [0034-0037], [0046-0048], [0055-0063], and [0077-0078].
Poranen does not explicitly teach the presence of natural protein fibrils (A) or the wool formed of staple fibers formed from the filament (B).
With respect to the difference, Svit teaches collagen fibers produced from tannery waste such as the hides tanned for leather, such as wet-blue tanned hides. The collagen fibers are produced by a mechanical disintegration of the wet-blue tanned hides. The collagen fibers are improved in cost as well as physical and mechanical properties and are suitable for known textile production. See, e.g., abstract, page 2, lines 38 – page 5, line 220. Given the collagen fibers are produced by mechanical disintegration of tanned hides, it follows the collagen fibers corresponds to mechanically subdivided natural protein fibers and corresponds to fibrils of tanned hides.
Svit and Poranen are analogous art as they are both drawn to a recycled and re-used fibrous material.
In light of the disclosure of Svit, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use collagen fibers produced from tanned hides as the recycled textile waste fibers of Poranen, in order to form a recycled, re-utilized, and re-used monofilament with predictable success, as Svit teaches the collagen fibers are suitable for further processing using methods known in the textile industry, and provide improved physical and mechanical properties in addition to low cost, and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 198 (CCPA 1960).
Given the filament is made from natural protein fibers and an additive, it follows the filament is reconstructed.
With respect to the difference, Marga (B) teaches collagen filaments are cut to form staple fibers. The staple fibers are baled for shipment to a yarn spinning facility or a non-woven processing facility. To assure uniformity, several bales of protein staple fibers may be blended together. The fibers may then be “opened” to assure that there are no clumps of fibers and then the opened fibers are formed into a web. See, e.g., abstract and paragraphs [0056], [0067], and [0072].
Marga and Poranen in view of Svit are analogous art as they are both drawn to forming collagen fibers.
In light of the disclosure as provided by Marga, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form opened fiber bales, i.e., wool, from the collagen fibers of Poranen in view of Svit, in order to prepare the fibers for further non-woven processing, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Karube et al. (Electrochemical Shaping of Fibrous Protein Fibrils) (Karube) discloses the preparation of a string from a collagen suspension. The collagen suspension includes an aqueous solution of hydrochloric acid or sodium hydroxide and collagen fibrils. The collagen fibrils are obtained from calf skin by mechanical grinding. See, e.g., Pages 160-163.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The previous rejection is substantially maintained. Any modification to the rejection is in response to the amendment of claims 35-37, 40-44, 46, 48, 57, 59-63 and addition of new claim 64.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as set forth below.
Applicant primarily argues the collagen fibers of Khanukov are not mechanically subdivided. They are not reconstructed filaments or reconstructed staple fibers comprising “natural protein fibrils… wherein the natural protein fibrils are mechanically subdivided protein raw material,” as recited in claim 35. Applicant further argues the collagen fibers of Khanukov are fundamentally different from staple fibers recited in claim 35 because the collagen fibers of Khanukov are not reconstructed from protein raw material, such as an entire piece of leather or tanned hide including its cellular and extracellular components, that has been subdivided into small fractions, followed by a new, non-native buildup process resulting in a filament, and subsequently, staple fibers. Applicant argues the specification describes in detail “reconstructed filament” or “reconstructed staple fiber” (Specification, page 16, line 13 to page 17, line 14, especially page 16, lines 15-17) and does not encompass the fibers of Khanukov. The collagen fibers of Khanukov are obtained without any cellular or extracellular components of the leather or tanned hide. Khanukov obtains its collagen fibers by chemical extraction without any cellular or extracellular components of the leather or tanned hide. Therefore, the collagen fibers are fundamentally different from the reconstructed filament and staple fibers. Remarks, pages 9-10.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
Firstly, in response to Applicant’s argument that the collagen fibers of Khanukov are not reconstructed from protein raw material, such as an entire piece of leather or tanned hide including its cellular and extracellular components, that has been subdivided into small fractions, followed by a new, non-native buildup process resulting in a filament, and subsequently staple fibers and applicant’s argument the specification describes in detail “reconstructed filament” or “reconstructed staple fiber”, it is noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
The fact remains claim 35 broadly recites, “reconstructed filament or reconstructed staple fiber comprises natural protein fibrils… wherein the natural protein fibrils are mechanically subdivided protein raw material.” Claim 35 does not require the collagen fibers are reconstructed from an entire piece of leather or tanned hide, including its cellular and extracellular components, that has been subdivided into small fractions, followed by a new, non-native buildup process resulting in a filament (emphasis added). It is noted the specification does not describe the collagen fibrils are reconstructed from an entire piece of leather or tanned hide, including its cellular and extracellular components (emphasis added). Therefore, Applicant is relying on limitations that don’t exist in the specification. Further, under broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 35 does not exclude collagen fibers without any cellular or extracellular components of the leather or tanned hide. The fact remains the collagen fibers are produced from a raw hide and therefore reads on the claim.
Since Khanukov teaches the collagen monofilament is formed form a collagen dispersion, wherein the collagen dispersion as produced by separating the raw hide into fibers, it is the Examiner’s opinion Khanukov meets the requirements of claim 35 as separating the raw hide into fibers reads on mechanically subdivided protein raw material. Since the monofil is made from these fibers, i.e., reading on the fibrils, it follows the monofil is a reconstructed monofilament, as described on pages 5-6 of the Office Action mailed 06/02/2025 and repeated in the Office Action above.
Applicant further argues Marga does not teach or suggest mechanical subdivision of protein raw material, for example an entire piece of leather or tanned hide. Therefore, no fibrils comparable to the fibrils recited in claim 59 are disclosed or suggested by Marga. Remarks, pages 12-14, 18, and 23-25.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
It is noted Marga is not relied upon to meet the limitation regarding mechanical subdivided protein raw material. While Marga does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Marga is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, i.e., collagen fibers are cut to form staple fibers, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicant further argues Poranen does not explicitly teach natural protein fibrils. The cellulose fiber of Poranen is not comparable or interchangeable with protein fibers as they have different mechanical properties, such as elasticity and tenacity. There is no reason to interchange the protein fibers of Svit with the cellulose fibers of Poranen. There is no reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the reconstructed filament in claim 35 because neither Poranen nor Svit teaches or suggests the reconstructed filament or staple fiber of claim 35. Remarks, pages 15-16, 18, 21, 23, and 25.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
Firstly, Poranen is drawn to recycled textile waste fibers. The collagen fibers of Svit are produced from tannery waste, such as leather waste. While Poranen does not explicitly teach collagen fibers, i.e., recycled leather waste fibers, Poranen does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the use of collagen fibers and the prior art references do not expressly exclude their combination. See MPEP 2123.
Secondly, it is the Examiner’s opinion since the collagen fibers are a type of recycled textile waste fiber, it follows one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would use the collagen fibers of Svit as the recycled textile waste fibers in Poranen, in order to provide improved physical and mechanical properties in addition to low cost with a reasonable expectation of success, especially as Svit teaches the collagen fibers are suitable for further processing using methods known in the textile industry, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 198 (CCPA 1960).
Thirdly, it is noted that “the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record”, In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the examiner’s position that the arguments provided by the applicant regarding the difference in tenacity and elongation between collagen and cellulose fibers must be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), “the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001”. Applicant must provide evidence supported by a declaration or additive to show collagen fibers are not comparable to cellulose fibers and are therefore incapable of forming the filament as taught in Poranen.
Applicant further argues the collagen fibers of Svit are fundamentally different form staple fibers recited in claim 35 because the collagen fibers of Svit are not reconstructed form protein raw material, such as an entire piece of leather or tanned hide including its cellular and extracellular components, that has been subdivided into small fractions, followed by anew, non-native buildup process resulting in a filament, and subsequently, staple fibers. The mechanical disintegration described by Svit is only applied for separation of single strands of intact fibers. Remarks, pages 16, 18, 20, and 25.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as follows:
Firstly, in response to Applicant’s argument that the collagen fibers of Svit are not reconstructed from protein raw material, such as an entire piece of leather or tanned hide including its cellular and extracellular components, that has been subdivided into small fractions, followed by a new, non-native buildup process resulting in a filament, and subsequently staple fibers and applicant’s argument the specification describes in detail “reconstructed filament” or “reconstructed staple fiber”, it is noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
The fact remains claim 35 broadly recites, “reconstructed filament or reconstructed staple fiber comprises natural protein fibrils… wherein the natural protein fibrils are mechanically subdivided protein raw material.” Claim 35 does not require the collagen fibers are reconstructed from an entire piece of leather or tanned hide, including its cellular and extracellular components, that has been subdivided into small fractions, followed by a new, non-native buildup process resulting in a filament (emphasis added). It is noted t