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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments filed July 23, 2026. Claims 1,3-5 and 9-15 are pending. Claim 2,6-8 and 16 have been cancelled. Claim 1 has been amended.
All prior rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1,3-5 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites new language which lacks literal basis in the specification, specifically “repeating the mixing to prepare the first mixed fiber, the mixing to prepare the second mixed fiber, and the mixing to prepare the third mixed fiber three times to prepare a third mixed fiber of a first time of the repeating, a third mixed fiber of a second time of the repeating, and a third mixed fiber of a third time of the repeating, and preparing a combined third mixed fiber by sequentially adding and mixing, in order, mixing the third mixed fiber, the third mixed fiber of the first time of the repeating, the third mixed fiber of the second time of the repeating, and the third mixed fiber of the third time of the repeating such that each of the third mixed fiber of the first time of the repeating, the third mixed fiber of the second time of the repeating, and the third mixed fiber of the third time of the repeating is added into and mixed with a previously-formed mixture before a subsequent one is added”. This language is considered new matter as it was not previously present in the original claims or specification. Claims 3-5 and 9-15 are also rejected for being dependent upon claim 1 and inheriting the same deficiency.
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 1,3-5 and 9-15 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. Applicant’s claims language “repeating the mixing to prepare the first mixed fiber, the mixing to prepare the second mixed fiber, and the mixing to prepare the third mixed fiber three times to prepare a third mixed fiber of a first time of the repeating, a third mixed fiber of a second time of the repeating, and a third mixed fiber of a third time of the repeating, and preparing a combined third mixed fiber by sequentially adding and mixing, in order, mixing the third mixed fiber, the third mixed fiber of the first time of the repeating, the third mixed fiber of the second time of the repeating, and the third mixed fiber of the third time of the repeating such that each of the third mixed fiber of the first time of the repeating, the third mixed fiber of the second time of the repeating, and the third mixed fiber of the third time of the repeating is added into and mixed with a previously-formed mixture before a subsequent one is added”. This language is very difficult to follow and confusing and it is unclear as to what the applicant is trying to claim. Claims 3-5 and 9-15 are also rejected for being dependent upon claim 1 and inheriting the same deficiency.
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 1,3-5,9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2008/0072628) in view of Park (KR 20100003128), Krecke (US 4,536,430), Young (US 3,179,342), Cao (CN 2848887) and Su (CN 1676699)..
Liu teaches producing a leather yarn using leather waste fiber (flaky scraps, paragraph 0006-0009), mixed with textile fibers such as common fibers of cotton (cellulose based natural fiber) or silk, wool (protein based natural fiber) and polymer fibers such as chemical fibers of polyamide , polypropylene and polyurethane (paragraph 0010). Liu teaches 1-100% leather fiber mixed with 0-99% textile fibers (paragraph 0021). Liu teaches carding, drawing, twisting and spinning the fibers (paragraph 0036-0038, claim 1). Liu teaches blending the fibers with animal oils to result in uniform yarn stem (paragraph 0024). Liu teaches the lengths of the fibers is 10-45mm, claim 2). Liu teaches blending of graded leather fiber and textile fiber according to need and proportion (paragraph 0034). Liu teaches spinning different sizes of fibers and different requirements for yarns (paragraph 0038).
Liu does not teach repeating the process a first second and third time to make 4 separate sets of third mixed fibers and the claimed percentage weight of each of the third mixed fibers in the basis of the total weight of the combined mixed fiber. Liu does not teach separate aging for the second mixed fiber. Liu does not specify flaky scraps have a flat form with a predetermined length on the two axes. Liu does not teach putting water and woolen oil into the mixed fiber and putting anti-static agent onto the woolen oil treated fiber before spinning. Liu does not teach 8-10% of water in the leather fiber and removing foreign matters on a rubber plate and drafting.
Park teaches adding woolen oil, water and antistatic agents to blends of fibers followed by spinning (abstract, page 4, combination process, claims) to produce a evenly combined fibers through the spinning and carding process (page 2, next to last paragraph to page 3, second paragraph). Park teaches blends of silk, cotton and polyester and other natural yarns (page 3, paragraph 2). Park teaches 0.03-0.04 woolen oil, 0.01-0.02 antistatic agent and 0.08-0.12 water ratio per the weight of the mixed fibers and mixing for 14-20 hours, which meet the claimed limitation of aging (page 4, combination process). Applicant’s claimed ratio of 5-10 parts by weight of water per 100 parts by weight of the first mixed fiber is 0.05-0.1 (5/100 to 10/100). Applicant’s claimed ratio of 2 parts by weight to 10 parts by weight woolen oil per 100 parts by weight the first mixed fiber is 0.02 to .1 (2/100 to 10/100). Applicant’s claimed ratio of 1 part by weight to 5 parts by weight of the antistatic agent per 100 parts by weight of the second mixed fiber is 0.01-.05 (1/100 to 5/100). These amounts all overlap with Park.
Krecke teaches that leather waste is conventionally cut into pieces, particularly strips of a predetermined length (column 1, lines 43-56; claim 7) and then used to obtain leather fibers for use in preparing other leather based materials (claims 35-37).
Young teaches that when producing leather fibers from leather scrap it is advantageous to keep the leather moisture level at less than 15% to provide a satisfactory fibrous pulp when the fibers are being milled (column 6, lines 37-50).
Cao teaches that rubber plates used in carding machines (page 2, paragraph 3, last paragraph)are advantageous because it produces blended fibers and eliminates sticking and enhances operation levels to produce high quality spun yarn (page 2, paragraph 1).
Su teaches treating leather fibers by carding and removing impurities, mixing, drawing, spinning, roving twisting and drafting (page 2, paragraph 3.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in at art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Liu by using a water and woolen oil mixing step and adding an antistatic agent to the mix to prepare the fiber mixture for spinning as Park teaches adding woolen oil and then antistatic agents and mixing at the claimed amounts for 14-20 hours, which meets the limitation of aging, permits a evenly combined fiber through the spinning and carding process. Regarding combining the water and woolen oil to prepare a second mixed fiber and aging the second mixed fiber for 8-12 hours prior to adding the antistatic agent to prepare a third mixed fiber and aging for another 8-12 hours, nothing unobvious is seen as combining the first and second aging steps into a single step or performing two separate aging steps as ultimately the fiber is treated with the same chemicals at the same concentrations simultaneously for an overall equivalent period of time to produce a similarly treated product and applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of separating the steps into two separate aging periods. Liu clearly teaches the same amounts of woolen agent, water and antistatic agent applied to the same fibers for a total of 14-20 hours. The cumulative aging time for applicant’s fibers exposed to first woolen oil and water is 8-12 hours and then an additional 8-12 hours with woolen oil, water and antistatic agent present for a total of 16-24 hours of aging wherein woolen oil and water are present in the two stages and aged. It is expected that combining the two aging steps into a single step wherein all components are present simultaneously would be expected to produce similar results even if the antistatic agent was present for 14-16 hours instead of 12 as these treatment times would be expected to produce similar results as it is simply a mixing process and longer mixing would provide the same treatment of the fibers.
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). If range of prior art and claimed range do not overlap, obviousness may still exist if the range are close enough that one would not expect a difference in properties, In re Woodruff 16 USPQ 2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Aller 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding the claimed limitation of repeating the mixing to prepare a first mixed fiber, second mixed fiber and third mixed fiber and mixing all the original, first , second and third mixed fibers to prepare a combined mixed fiber is obvious as Liu teaches blending of graded leather fiber and textile fiber according to need and proportion (and further teaches spinning different sizes of fibers and different requirements for yarns. Selecting the combination of mixed fiber components as well as the percentage of each mixed fiber in the combined fiber yarn based on need, proportion and requirement for the yarn is within routine skill in the art to influence the overall yarn properties. Selecting the amounts of water, woolen oil and antistatic agent can also be achieved through routine experimentation by selection of the amounts from Park.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Liu by cutting the waste leather into flaky scraps with a flat form having a first and second axis each of predetermined length as Krecke teaches that leather waste is conventionally cut into pieces, particularly strips (flat form) of a predetermined length (x and y axis of desired length for the length of the individual fibers) and then the strips are manipulated to obtain leather fibers for use in preparing other leather based materials. Liu invites the inclusion of leather waste.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Liu by starting with a leather fiber of water content 8-10% as Young teaches leather fibers are most efficiently produced from leather waste materials when the are milled at moisture (water) contents of less than 15%. Using a known leather waste material at art recognized effective water contents to produce leather fibers for manufacturing leather yarns is obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Liu by using a rubber plate to remove foreign matters from the slivers as Cao teaches carding machines are commonly made of rubber plates and these rubbers are used to produce spun yarns of high quality. It is inherent applying the same fibers to the same rubber plates would produce the same foreign material removal. Using standard equipment known for effectively carding textile slivers to produce high quality spun yarn is obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Liu by preparing slivers by twisting and drafting as Su teaches these are conventional steps performed to produce a sliver of yarn forming quality. It would have been further obvious to remove impurities during carding in Liu as Su teaches removing impurities and carding slivers are conventional steps using during the production of yarns.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2008/0072628) in view of Park (KR 20100003128), Krecke (US 4,536,430), Young (US 3,179,342), Cao (CN 2848887) and Su (CN 1676699) and further in view of Wong (EP 1180558).
Liu, Park, Krecke, Young, Cao and Su are relied upon as set forth above.
Liu, Park, Krecke, Young, Cao and Su do not teach controlling the speed of the worker.
Wong teaches that carding machines contain worker rolls and the speed of the rollers can be controlled to impact the degree of fiber orientation (paragraphs 0020, 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Liu, Park, Krecke, Young, Cao and Su by using carding machines with worker rollers with controlled speeds because Wong teaches controlling the rotational speed of the worker rollers and other rollers allows for control of the orientation of the fibers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2008/0072628) in view of Park (KR 20100003128), Krecke (US 4,536,430), Young (US 3,179,342), Cao (CN 2848887) and Su (CN 1676699) and further in view of Xia (CN 108166121A).
Liu, Park, Krecke, Young, Cao and Su are relied upon as set forth above.
Liu, Park, Krecke, Young, Cao and Su do not teach second drawings.
Xia teaches in conventional fiber processing loose fibers have impurities removed, are mixed, carded. combed, undergo a first drawing then a second drawing, roving and spinning (page 2, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Liu, Park, Kreck< Young, Cao and Su by using combing, drawing, second drawings and roving to produce slivers as Xia teaches these are conventional methods steps standard it the art which are effective in producing yarns. Using standard effective methods routinely performed to produce yarns is obvious.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2008/0072628) in view of Park (KR 20100003128), Krecke (US 4,536,430), Young (US 3,179,342), Cao (CN 2848887), Su (CN 1676699) and Xia (CN 108166121A) and further in view of Quay (US 4,408,370).
Liu, Park, Krecke, Young, Cao, Su and Xia are relied upon as set forth above.
Liu, Park, Krecke, Young, Cao, Su and Xia do not teach wire fillets.
Quay teaches wire fillets ensure fiber tension is maintained at all times (column 4, lines (column 3, lines 25-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Liu, Park, Krecke, Young, Cao, Su and Xia by using wire fillets of the claimed interval as Quay teaches wire fillets control the tensioning during treatment of a sliver. Adjusting the interval to impact the tensioning could be accomplished through routine experimentation.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2008/0072628) in view of Park (KR 20100003128), Krecke (US 4,536,430), Young (US 3,179,342), Cao (CN 2848887), Su (CN 1676699) and Xia (CN 108166121A) and further in view of Hernandez (US 2002/0071951).
Liu, Park, Krecke, Young, Cao, Su and Xia are relied upon as set forth above.
Liu, Park, Krecke, Young, Cao, Su and Xia do not teach spraying water during drawing.
Hernandez teaches it is known to spray water on fibers during drawing (paragraph 0086,0090,0093).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Liu, Park, Krecke, Young, Cao, Su and Xia by spraying with water during drawing as Hernandez teaches this is conventionally performed when drawing fibers. Water inherently prevents static electricity.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2008/0072628) in view of Park (KR 20100003128), Krecke (US 4,536,430) Young (US 3,179,342), Cao (CN 2848887) and Su (CN 1676699) and further in view of Yang (CN 104141177).
Liu, Park, Krecke, Young, Cao and Su are relied upon as set forth above.
Liu, Park, Krecke, Young, Cao and Su do not teach covering steps.
Yang teaches it is known to produce antistatic fibers by using a core leather fiber and wrapping it or covering it with an antistatic wool (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Liu, Park, Krecke, Young, Cao and Su by covering the leather yarn with an antistatic wool covering as Yang teaches this is effective in producing a yarn with excellent antistatic performance, durability, flexibility and drapability and the yarn has good friction resistance and stable chemical and physical performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding Liu in view of Park and Krecke as they apply to the new rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner argues applicant’s comprising language for the claims does not prohibit aging for some amount of time in the presence of the anti-static agent. The mixing time period for the aging is not defined for the period while the anti-static agent is present in the composition. Applicant’s own specification indicated this can occur (page 5, lines 5-6). Since applicant has a method comprising, additional period of aging can be present allowing for the water and woolen oil to be present for a 8-12 aging and for further hours aging in the presence of the anti-static agent. Additionally applicant has not defined what aging as a method encompasses. Applicant nowhere int eh specification indicates that aging is a period where no mixing occurs or where the composition is just left to sit without any other processes, therefore aging can occur during mixing. The examiner interprets aging to be being present in the mixture during any operation such as a storage of mixing operation. Applicant has not demonstrated any unexpected results of the woolen oil and water being present separately prior to the additional of the anti-static agent. And since the end composition is a mixture of water, woolen oil, and antistatic agent with the fiber blend, nothing unobvious is seen in simultaneous addition of the woolen oil and the antistatic agent as in both cases of separate additions or simultaneous addition the fibers still have the same overall composition at the end. 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). Applicant’s claims is essentially mixing components in sequence instead of simultaneously.
The examiner repeats previous arguments that combining the water and woolen oil to prepare a second mixed fiber and aging the second mixed fiber for 8-12 hours prior to adding the antistatic agent to prepare a third mixed fiber and aging for another 8-12 hours, nothing unobvious is seen as combining the first and second aging steps into a single step or performing two separate aging steps as ultimately the fiber is treated with the same chemicals at the same concentrations simultaneously for an overall equivalent period of time to produce a similarly treated product and applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of separating the steps into two separate aging periods. Liu clearly teaches the same amounts of woolen agent, water and antistatic agent applied to the same fibers for a total of 14-20 hours. The cumulative aging time for applicant’s fibers exposed to first woolen oil and water is 8-12 hours and then an additional 8-12 hours with woolen oil, water and antistatic agent present for a total of 16-24 hours of aging wherein woolen oil and water are present in the two stages and aged. It is expected that combining the two aging steps into a single step wherein all components are present simultaneously would be expected to produce similar results even if the antistatic agent was present for 14-16 hours instead of 12 as these treatment times would be expected to produce similar results as it is simply a mixing process and longer mixing would provide the same treatment and blending of the fibers with the woolen agent, water and antistatic agent. Park clearly teaches the aging and mixing are for the fibers to be effectively treated with the woolen oil and absorb it as is the importance of applicant’s treatment. The same treatment for the same amount of time provides the fibers with the same mixing benefits and softening. The treatment of Park would provide the same benefit as applicant’s as the claimed chemicals are applied to the same fibers and the absorption and mixing rate benefits would be the same for the similar treatment process, even if not explicitly recited by the prior art.
Regarding the order of mixing, applicant’s own specification describes 4 separate operations which follow the same protocol to produce for sets of fibers mixed with woolen oil, water and antistatic agent, equivalent to four separate batches (page 10, lines 19-24). These identical batches are then added together in different proportions and mixed. Since the mixing time is not defined and the batches have the same composition, adding and mixing could take just a few seconds which is essentially the same as a simultaneously adding all 4 batches together and mixing. In applicant’s claim the first mixing could take for example just a few seconds, the second mixing could take a few more seconds, the third mixing could take a few seconds and the fourth mixing could take a few seconds and the entire blending process in all four stages could be done in less than a minute. It is unclear to the examiner how such a process would differ from the results of simultaneous application. Further it is unclear how it matters what percentage of each batch is added as they all seem to be prepared from the same process and must therefore have an identical composition. Applicant is alleging the mixing order is critical or novel in the invention but has not demonstrated the method of mixing provides unexpectedly superior results to standard mixing processes. Further applicant has not defined aging as a process that cannot occur during mixing. New references to Young and Cao address the new water content of the leather fibers and rubber plate limitations. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
