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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 26, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 23,24,32,33,36,43,55 and 81-97 are pending. Claims 1-22,25-31,34,35,37-42,44-54 and 56-80 have been cancelled. Claims 95-97 are new. Claims 23 and 36 have been amended.
All prior rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 23,24,32,33,36,43.55,81-92 and 95-97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoll (WO 2009135239) in view of Zhang (US 2007/0186352), Choe (KR 101840731) and Lim (KR 20180042539A) as evidenced by Boniall-Espadas (Taxonomic and Functional Profiling of Bacterial Communities in Leather Biodegradation: Insights into Metabolic Pathways and Diversity. Bacteria. 2025, 4, 37.).
Stoll teaches obtaining leather waste of tanned hide to make new leather materials and process them in a way similar to tanned animal hide (page 2, paragraph 2). Stoll teaches taking leather waste (scrap) and shredding it in a shredding device (mechanically separated and subdivided) into leather fibers/fibrils to form a binder free granulate (page 6, paragraph 1; page 8-9), optionally combined with additives (page 12, paragraph 1) and made into an aqueous pulp (protein fibril suspension; page 13, last paragraph) and extruding (nozzle) or injection molding the pulp into fibers (reconstructed fiber) and drying (page 15). Boniall-Espadas provides evidence that tanned leather consist of 90% collagen proteins and the following non-collagen proteins: 6% keratin proteins, 3% albumin proteins and 0.9% elastic proteins (page 13/23, last paragraph). Stoll teaches dye as incorporated into the leather product (claim 6).
Stoll does not teach spinning the reconstructed fiber into a yarn and staple fibers and normalizing the color into a neutral base color before dyeing.
Zhang teaches taking chrome tanned leather (paragraph 0029) and mechanically loosening the fibers in an opener or cutter into fibers and fibrils (paragraphs 0031, 0003) and preparing a dispersion with the liquid opener (suspension of protein fibrils; paragraph 0016) and spinning into yarns (abstract; paragraphs 0005-0010, paragraphs 0022-0033). Zhang teaches making the yarn into fabric (abstract).
Choe teaches leather wastes are conventionally made from pig skins (page 4, next to last paragraph) and are made of staple fibers (example 1).
Lim teaches in leather manufacturing leather material are conventionally spray coated with a white pigment base coat to turn the leather white (normalizing the color into a neutral base color) and further coated with another color coating to make the leather a desired color (page 1, abstract; page 3, last 3 paragraphs). These methods do not include bleaching.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made to make a collagen yarn by taking tanned leather scrap containing an 90% collagen protein fibrils and up to 10% non-collagen protein fibrils selected from keratin, albumin and elastin and containing an amount of tanning agent, mechanically shredding the leather scrap into fibrils, suspending the shredded fibrils in water to form a wet pulp protein fibril suspension which is extruded or injection molded through a nozzle and dried to form collagen containing fibers as Stoll teaches this a conventional method of preparing new leather products from leather waste materials and Boniall-Espadas provides evidence that tanned leathers consist of 90% collagen proteins and the following non-collagen proteins: 6% keratin proteins, 3% albumin proteins and 0.9% elastic proteins.
It would have been obvious to modify the methods of Stoll by using chrome tanned leather scraps and spinning the leather waste fibers into yarn and making new leather fabrics as Zhang teaches chrome tanned leather scraps are recycled in this way to form leather yarns and new leather fabric products.
It would have been further obvious to modify the methods of Stoll by coloring the fibers with a white dyestuff prior to coloring with a dyestuff of the desired final color for the leather as Lim teaches this gives the leather better chromaticity and coverage. Stoll invites the inclusion of treating reconstructed leather in the same way as traditional natural leather Regarding coloring the yarn prior to forming a fabric, the order of steps is not deemed critical as in both cases the final leather fabric produced is colored.
In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959). Changing the order of steps does not render a claimed process non-obvious over the prior art, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440,441,442 (POBA 1959).
Claims 93 and 94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoll (WO 2009135239) in view of Zhang (US 2007/0186352), Choe (KR 101840731) and Lim (KR 20180042539A) as evidenced by Boniall-Espadas (Taxonomic and Functional Profiling of Bacterial Communities in Leather Biodegradation: Insights into Metabolic Pathways and Diversity. Bacteria. 2025, 4, 37) and further in view of O’Connell (US 4,063,888).
Stoll, Zhang, Choe, Lim and Boniall-Espadas are relied upon as set forth above.
Stoll, Zhang, Choe, Lim and Boniall-Espadas do not teach the yarn is wound up on a plurality of reel prior to dyeing.
O’Connell teaches winding protein yarns such as collagen (column 2, lines 11-16) around perforated tubes to prepare packages wherein they are dyed while wound on the tubes in package form (column 3, lines 7-40). O’Connell teaches this allows for rapid dye strike and can control dye flow to the desired regions of the wound yarn based on the desired custom dye pattern (column 3).
It would have been obvious to modify the methods of Stoll, Zhang, Choe, Lim and Boniall-Espadas by dyeing the yarns wound on perforated reels or tubes as O’Connell teaches collagen yarns can be space dyed in a desired color pattern by using this method for the benefit of custom space dyeing and rapid dye strike. Stoll invites the inclusion of dyes as additives to the leather products. Using a known dyeing method for incorporating dyes onto regenerated leather fibers is obvious. Dyeing a first set of spooled yarns a first color and a second set of spooled yarns a second color is simply a design choice based on the desired shades of colored yarns needed for the final fabrics. Choosing to dye two separate batches of reconstructed collagen containing yarns in different colors is obvious to produce different or multicolored colored products.
Double Patenting
The no statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 23,24,32,33,36,43,55 and 81-97 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,3,27-29,53 and 58 of copending Application No. 17/416717 in view of Lim (KR 20180042539A). Lim teaches in leather manufacturing leather material are conventionally spray coated with a white pigment base coat to turn the leather white (normalizing the color into a neutral base color) and further coated with another color coating to make the leather a desired color (page 1, abstract; page 3, last 3 paragraphs). These methods do not include bleaching. It would have been obvious to apply a whitening colorant to dye the collagen fabrics, fibers or yarns a neutral tone prior to dyeing to improve their chromaticity and coverage and more truly exhibit the dye color after dyeing as taught by Lim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Marga in view of Kuwabara have been considered but are moot as these references are no longer relied upon in the rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights