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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1,3-5 and 9-16 are pending. Claim 2 and 6-8 have been cancelled. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 16 is new.
All prior rejections are maintained for the reasons set forth below.
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 1,3-5,11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2008/0072628) in view of Park (KR 20100003128) and Krecke (US 4,536,430).
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 and spinning the fibers (paragraph 0036-0038). 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.
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).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2008/0072628) in view of Park (KR 20100003128) and Krecke (US 4,536,430) and further in view of Su (CN 1676699).
Liu, Park and Krecke are relied upon as set forth above.
Liu, Park and Krecke do not teach drafting.
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 the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Liu, Park and Krecke by preparing slivers by twisting and drafting as Su teaches these are conventional steps performed to produce a sliver of yarn forming quality.
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) and Su (CN 1676699) and further in view of Wong (EP 1180558).
Liu, Park, Krecke and Su are relied upon as set forth above.
Liu, Park, Krecke 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 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) and Su (CN 1676699) and further in view of Xia (CN 108166121A).
Liu, Park, Krecke and Su are relied upon as set forth above.
Liu, Park, Krecke 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, Krecke 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), Su (CN 1676699) and Xia (CN 108166121A) and further in view of Quay (US 4,408,370).
Liu, Park, Krecke, Su and Xia are relied upon as set forth above.
Liu, Park, Krecke, 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, 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), Su (CN 1676699) and Xia (CN 108166121A) and further in view of Hernandez (US 2002/0071951).
Liu, Park, Krecke, Su and Xia are relied upon as set forth above.
Liu, Park, Krecke, 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, 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) and Krecke (US 4,536,430) and further in view of Yang (CN 104141177).
Liu, Park and Krecke are relied upon as set forth above.
Liu, Park and Krecke do not 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 and Krecke 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 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 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 aging and adding an antistatic agent to the mix and aging a second time to prepare the fiber mixture for spinning as Park teaches adding woolen oil, water 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.
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.
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 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.
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).
It is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to distinguish over the prior art. Additionally where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on." In re Swinehart, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding the mixing the third mixed fiber of the original mixing and first, second and third time of repeating in the claimed amounts, these original and first, second and third times of repeating are essentially 4 individual batches that have undergone the same processing, nothing unobvious is seen in combining 4 separate batches of a third fiber which has undergone identical processing. Each individual batch starts with new raw materials and mixes them as claimed in the first three mixing steps. Combining the four batches in any proportion would be obvious as they are simply a third fiber that has gone through the first three claimed mixing steps. The original, first, second and third batch should be identical in composition so combining them in any proportion is obvious as each individual batch is made of the identical composition. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
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