DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/IN2020/050534 filed 06/17/2020. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based on IN201911024333 filed 06/19/2019. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, 12, 13, 17 and 18 are amended. Claims 10 and 11 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 12, 13, 17 and 18 are pending (claim set filed 02/18/2026) and are examined on the merits herein.
Withdrawal of Rejections
The response and amendment filed on 02/18/2026 are acknowledged. All of the amendment and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed and considered.
For the purposes of clarity of the record, the reasons for the Examiner's withdrawal and/or maintaining if applicable, of the substantive or essential claim rejections are detailed directly below and/or in the Examiner's response to arguments section.
A previously applied objections to claims 1, 17 and 18 have been withdrawn necessitated by amendment of claims 1, 17 and 18.
The previous claims 1, 3-5, 10-13, 17 and 18 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn necessitated by amendment of claims 1, 3-5, 12, 13, 17 and 18 and cancellation of claims 10 and 11.
The previous claims 10 and 11 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been withdrawn necessitated by cancellation of claims 10 and 11.
Maintained/Modified Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-5, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (Sharma et al. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 2018, 20, 2157-2167 on record in IDS) in view of Aranberri (Aranberri et al. Polymers, 2017, 9, 593, 1-15), Dieckmann (WO 2017221015) and Chen (CN 109096506 A ).
Regarding claim 1, Sharma teaches preparation of bioplastic film from waste chicken feather (Abstract). Sharma describes pre-treatment of feathers (p. 2158, right column, 4th paragraph), extraction of keratin in the presence of reducing agent, sodium sulfate (p. 2158, 5th paragraph) and polymerization in the presence of plasticizer, i.e. glycerol, cross-linking agent, i.e. microcrystalline cellulose, and alkali hydroxide by thermal processing at 60° C: “The keratin powder was used to synthesize a bioplastic film using glycerol (3.5%) and microcrystalline cellulose (0.2%) in NaOH for 48 h at 60° C.” (p. 2159, right column, last paragraph). The amount of plasticizer is within the claimed limitation.
Sharma does not teach the temperature of blending of 100-130° C, the use of additive during polymerization step, extruding, palletizing and processing of biopolymer by applying pressure and subjecting to thermal processing in the presence of excipient and does not teach instant elongation properties.
Aranberri teaches preparation of biodegradable biopolymers from chicken feather (CF) blended with biodegradable polymers as additives, i.e. polylactic acid (PLA), polybutyrate adipate terephthalate (PBAT) and a PLA/thermoplastic copolyester blend (Abstract). Aranberri describes that in biocomposites the amount of CF is 50-60 wt% and hence the amount of additive polymers are 40-50 wt%. Aranberri teaches addition of PEG400 to blend of ground feathers with PLA polymer during biopolymer processing (p. 4, 2nd paragraph). Additives, PLA, PBAT, PLA/ copolyester blend and PEG400, can be considered excipients. Aranberri discloses that the blends are compression-molded by applying pressure with hot press machine and temperature of 200° C (p. 4, 2nd paragraph). Aranberri describes that the resulting biopolymers are biodegradable, lightweight and have good air and heat-insulating capabilities and “… could be considered as isolator components in buildings to reduce heat transfer and hence decrease energy consumption” (p. 12, last paragraph and p. 13, 4th paragraph).
Dieckmann teaches process of obtaining and using keratin from feathers (Abstract). Dieckmann describes using keratin for biodegradable filler, insulation additive, packaging material, water-repellant or flame retardant material (p. 3, lines 37-38). The keratin material is combined with resin, or binder or polymer (p. 4, lines 12-13, 22). Among resin alternatives Dieckmann recites polyamide resin (p. 17, line 27) and among polymers polylactic acid (p. 18, line 9), which are instant additives. Dieckmann discloses that the thermal processing of the composite material to form composite product is performed at 80° C to 300° C (p. 28, lines 6-9) and that material can be extruded or molded (p. 18, lines 26-27). Dieckmann mentions that moulding and shaping the article can be performed before, after or during thermal processing (p. 28, lines 12-14) implying that blending, extrusion and moulding can be conducting with thermal treatment at 80° C to 300° C. Dieckmann describes that after thermal processing the product is allowed to cool (p. 28, lines 29-30). Dieckmann discloses that the product can be extruded, pelletized and molded (p. 38, lines 32-33) and since extrusion can be performed with thermal treatment and product is cooled after thermal treatment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assume that pelletizing is performed on cooled product.
Chen teaches preparation of feather keratin PVA films (Abstract). Chen provides example of the product containing feather keratin, 15% of plasticizer, glycerol, and 40% of additive PVA, that is within or close to instant concentrations (paragraph 0060). The mechanical properties of several products are presented in Table 1. Table 1 shows that the elongation at break for the product with 15% glycerol and 40% PVA (p. 7 of original version, #5, second column) is 262%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Sharma and Aranberri and add biodegradable polymers as additives at 40-50 wt% to CF at 50-60 wt% from Aranberri teaching to the method of preparation of biopolymers described by Sharma and apply method of thermo-pressure processing in the presence of additives as described by Aranberri to biopolymers prepared by method described by Sharma. One would have been motivated to make this combination to produce lightweight thermal-insulating materials to reduce heat transfer and decrease energy consumption as described by Aranberri. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this combination since both Sharma and Aranberri describe methods of preparation of bioproducts from feathers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add parameters of thermal processing and procedures of extrusion and pelletizing of the product prior to molding from Dieckmann teaching to method of preparation of biopolymers based on Sharma and Aranberri teachings. One would have been motivated to make this combination since Dieckmann describes preparation of different bioproducts, i.e. biodegradable filler, insulation additive, packaging material, water-repellant or flame retardant material. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this combination since Sharma, Aranberri and Dieckmann describe methods of preparation of bioproducts from feather keratin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow Chen teaching and assume that the method of biopolymer production based on prior art of Sharma, Aranberri and Dieckmann can produce product with the elongation of 262%. One would have been motivated to make this assumption since Chen teaches combination of feather keratin, plasticizer, glycerol, and additive PVA which are the same components as described by Sharma and Aranberri. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this combination since Sharma, Aranberri, Dieckmann and Chen describe methods of preparation of bioproducts from feathers. Thus, Sharma, Aranberri, Dieckmann and Chen teachings render claim 1 obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Sharma teaches using complete feathers (p. 2158, right column, 4th paragraph) that include fiber and quill and hence the extracted keratin is the mixture of feather fiber and feather quill keratin. Thus, Sharma, Aranberri, Dieckmann and Chen teachings render claim 3 obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Sharma teaches keratin extraction with sodium sulphide as reducing agent (p. 2158, 5th paragraph) and hence Sharma, Aranberri, Dieckmann and Chen teachings render claim 4 obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Sharma teaches using glycerol as plasticizer (p. 2159, right column, last paragraph) and hence Sharma, Aranberri, Dieckmann and Chen teachings render claim 5 obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Aranberri teaches PLA and PBAT as additives to feather blends in production of biocomposites (Abstract). Aranberri teaches addition of PEG400 to blend of ground feathers with PLA polymer during biopolymer processing (p. 4, 2nd paragraph). Additives (which are PLA, PBAT and PEG400) are within a claimed group of excipients in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Aranberri teaches compression-molding of biopolymers (p. 4, 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow guidance of Aranberri and apply procedures of Aranberri teaching to combined method of making feather comprising biopolymer based on Sharma, Aranberri, Dieckmann and Chen teachings, including application of PLA and PBAT as biodegradable additives and PEG400 as another additive for processing of feather containing biopolymers and use compression-molding technique for thermal processing of biopolymers obtained after extrusion and pelletizing as taught by Dieckmann. One would have been motivated to make to do so since Aranberri teaches that the resulting biopolymers are biodegradable, lightweight and have good air and heat -insulating capabilities. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this combination since both Sharma and Aranberri, Dieckmann and Chen describe methods of preparation of biopolymers from feathers. Thus, Sharma, Aranberri, Dieckmann and Chen teachings render claims 12 and 13 obvious.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (Sharma et al. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 2018, 20, 2157-2167 on record in IDS) in view of Aranberri (Aranberri et al. Polymers, 2017, 9, 593, 1-15), Bullions (Bullions et al. J. Appl. Polymer Science, 2004, 92, 3771–3783), Dieckmann (WO 2017221015) and Chen (CN 109096506 A ).
Regarding claim 17, Sharma teaches preparation of bioplastic film from waste chicken feather (Abstract). Sharma describes pre-treatment of feathers (p. 2158, right column, 4th paragraph), extraction of keratin in the presence of reducing agent, sodium sulfate (p. 2158, 5th paragraph) and polymerization in the presence of plasticizer, i.e. glycerol, cross-linking agent, i.e. microcrystalline cellulose, and alkali hydroxide by thermal processing at 60° C: “The keratin powder was used to synthesize a bioplastic film using glycerol (3.5%) and microcrystalline cellulose (0.2%) in NaOH for 48 h at 60° C.” (p. 2159, right column, last paragraph). The amounts of plasticizer and cross-linker are within the claimed limitation.
Sharma does not teach the temperature of blending of 100-130° C, the use of maleic anhydride and additive during polymerization step, extruding, palletizing and processing of biopolymer by applying pressure and subjecting to thermal processing in the presence of excipient and does not teach instant elongation properties.
Aranberri teaches preparation of biodegradable biopolymers from chicken feather (CF) blended with biodegradable polymers as additives, i.e. polylactic acid (PLA), polybutyrate adipate terephthalate (PBAT) and a PLA/thermoplastic copolyester blend (Abstract). Aranberri describes that in biocomposites the amount of CF is 50-60 wt% and hence the amount of additive polymers are 40-50 wt%. Aranberri teaches addition of PEG400 to blend of ground feathers with PLA polymer during biopolymer processing (p. 4, 2nd paragraph). Additives, PLA, PBAT, PLA/ copolyester blend and PEG400, can be considered excipients. Aranberri discloses that the blends are compression-molded by applying pressure with hot press machine and temperature of 200° C (p. 4, 2nd paragraph). Aranberri describes that the resulting biopolymers are biodegradable, lightweight and have good air and heat-insulating capabilities and “… could be considered as isolator components in buildings to reduce heat transfer and hence decrease energy consumption” (p. 12, last paragraph and p. 13, 4th paragraph).
Bullions teaches the effect of maleic anhydride on mechanical properties of feather fiber polypropylene composites (Abstract). Bullions describes that modification of polypropylene with 2 wt% maleic anhydride increases the tensile strength and impact energy of the modified polypropylene composite with 2 wt% feather (p. 3773, left column). Since polypropylene is used at 98%, the amount of maleic anhydride is within 1 wt% - 2 wt% that corresponds to instant limitation.
Dieckmann teaches process of obtaining and using keratin from feathers (Abstract). Dieckmann describes using keratin for biodegradable filler, insulation additive, packaging material, water-repellant or flame retardant material (p. 3, lines 37-38). The keratin material is combined with resin, or binder or polymer (p. 4, lines 12-13, 22). Among resin alternatives Dieckmann recites polyamide resin (p. 17, line 27) and among polymers polylactic acid (p. 18, line 9), which are instant additives. Dieckmann discloses that the thermal processing of the composite material to form composite product is performed at 80° C to 300° C (p. 28, lines 6-9) and that material can be extruded or molded (p. 18, lines 26-27). Dieckmann mentions that moulding and shaping the article can be performed before, after or during thermal processing (p. 28, lines 12-14) implying that blending, extrusion and moulding can be conducting with thermal treatment at 80° C to 300° C. Dieckmann describes that after thermal processing the product is allowed to cool (p. 28, lines 29-30). Dieckmann discloses that the product can be extruded, pelletized and molded (p. 38, lines 32-33) and since extrusion can be performed with thermal treatment and product is cooled after thermal treatment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assume that pelletizing is performed on cooled product.
Chen teaches preparation of feather keratin PVA films (Abstract). Chen provides example of the product containing feather keratin, 15% of plasticizer, glycerol, and 40% of additive PVA, that is within or close to instant concentrations (paragraph 0060). The mechanical properties of several products are presented in Table 1. Table 1 shows that the elongation at break for the product with 15% glycerol and 40% PVA (p. 7 of original version, #5, second column) is 262%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Sharma and Aranberri and add biodegradable polymers as additives at 40-50 wt% to CF at 50-60 wt% from Aranberri teaching to the method of preparation of biopolymers described by Sharma and apply method of thermo-pressure processing in the presence of additives as described by Aranberri to biopolymers prepared by method described by Sharma. One would have been motivated to make this combination to produce lightweight thermal-insulating materials to reduce heat transfer and decrease energy consumption as described by Aranberri. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this combination since both Sharma and Aranberri describe methods of preparation of bioproducts from feather keratin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try addition of 1 wt% - 2 wt% of maleic anhydride during biopolymer production based on prior art of Sharma and Aranberri . One would have been motivated to make do so since Bullions teaches that maleic anhydride can increase interaction of feather keratin with the polymer matrix. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this combination since Sharma, Aranberri and Bullions describe methods of preparation of bioproducts from feathers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add parameters of thermal processing and procedures of extrusion and pelletizing of the product prior to molding from Dieckmann teaching to method of preparation of biopolymers based on Sharma, Aranberri and Bullions teachings. One would have been motivated to make this combination since Dieckmann describes preparation of different bioproducts, i.e. biodegradable filler, insulation additive, packaging material, water-repellant or flame retardant material. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this combination since Sharma, Aranberri, Dieckmann and Bullions describe methods of preparation of bioproducts from feather keratin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow Chen teaching and assume that the method of biopolymer production based on prior art of Sharma, Aranberri, Bullions and Dieckmann can produce product with the elongation of 262%. One would have been motivated to make this assumption since Chen teaches combination of feather keratin, plasticizer, glycerol, and additive PVA which are the same components as described by Sharma and Aranberri. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this combination since Sharma, Aranberri, Bullions, Dieckmann and Chen describe methods of preparation of bioproducts from feathers. Thus, Sharma, Aranberri, Bullions, Dieckmann and Chen teachings render claim 17 obvious.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (Sharma et al. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 2018, 20, 2157-2167 on record in IDS) in view of Aranberri (Aranberri et al. Polymers, 2017, 9, 593, 1-15), Esparza (Esparza et al. Materials and Design, 2017, 133, 1- 9), Changping (WO 2011009165 A1), Dieckmann (WO 2017221015) and Chen (CN 109096506 A).
Regarding claim 18, Sharma teaches preparation of bioplastic film from waste chicken feather (Abstract). Sharma describes pre-treatment of feathers (p. 2158, right column, 4th paragraph), extraction of keratin in the presence of reducing agent, sodium sulfate (p. 2158, 5th paragraph) and polymerization in the presence of plasticizer, i.e. glycerol, cross-linking agent, i.e. microcrystalline cellulose, and alkali hydroxide by thermal processing at 60° C: “The keratin powder was used to synthesize a bioplastic film using glycerol (3.5%) and microcrystalline cellulose (0.2%) in NaOH for 48 h at 60° C.” (p. 2159, right column, last paragraph). The amount of plasticizer is within the claimed limitation.
Sharma does not teach the temperature of blending of 100-130° C, the use of citric acid, steric acid, talc and additive during polymerization step, extruding, palletizing and processing of biopolymer by applying pressure and subjecting to thermal processing in the presence of excipient and does not teach instant elongation properties.
Aranberri teaches preparation of biodegradable biopolymers from chicken feather (CF) blended with biodegradable polymers as additives, i.e. polylactic acid (PLA), polybutyrate adipate terephthalate (PBAT) and a PLA/thermoplastic copolyester blend (Abstract). Aranberri describes that in biocomposites the amount of CF is 50-60 wt% and hence the amount of additive polymers are 40-50 wt%. Aranberri teaches addition of PEG400 to blend of ground feathers with PLA polymer during biopolymer processing (p. 4, 2nd paragraph). Additives, PLA, PBAT, PLA/ copolyester blend and PEG400, can be considered excipients. Aranberri discloses that the blends are compression-molded by applying pressure with hot press machine and temperature of 200° C (p. 4, 2nd paragraph). Aranberri describes that the resulting biopolymers are biodegradable, lightweight and have good air and heat-insulating capabilities and “… could be considered as isolator components in buildings to reduce heat transfer and hence decrease energy consumption” (p. 12, last paragraph and p. 13, 4th paragraph).
Esparza teaches citric acid as a cross-linker in the preparation of crosslinked poly(vinyl alcohol)/feather keratin nanofiber scaffolds (Abstract). Esparza mentions that citric acid cross -linking resulted in water stable polyvinyl alcohol/keratin nanofiber mats (Abstract). For preparation 1.2 g of citric acid was added to 5 g PVA in 50 ml of deionized water and compositions were prepared with 70- 90% of that solution (p. 2, right column, 3rd paragraph and Table 1). That provides 1.7-2.2% of citric acid that is close to instant 1-1.5 wt%.
Changping teaches preparation of multilayer film comprising a core polymer composed of a melt blend of polyethylene, thermoplastic starch and ethylene acrylic acid copolymer (Abstract). Changping mentions that thermoplastic starch (which is an instant additive) can comprise glycerol as plasticizer (p. 9, line 6). Changping discloses that the core polymer may include fillers such as talc and steric acid in the amount of 0.1 wt% to about 0.4 wt% (p. 11, lines 25-31, p. 12, line 1). The amount of steric acid is close to instant amount of 0.5%.
Dieckmann teaches process of obtaining and using keratin from feathers (Abstract). Dieckmann describes using keratin for biodegradable filler, insulation additive, packaging material, water-repellant or flame retardant material (p. 3, lines 37-38). The keratin material is combined with resin, or binder or polymer (p. 4, lines 12-13, 22). Among resin alternatives Dieckmann recites polyamide resin (p. 17, line 27) and among polymers polylactic acid (p. 18, line 9), which are instant additives. Dieckmann discloses that the thermal processing of the composite material to form composite product is performed at 80° C to 300° C (p. 28, lines 6-9) and that material can be extruded or molded (p. 18, lines 26-27). Dieckmann mentions that molding and shaping the article can be performed before, after or during thermal processing (p. 28, lines 12-14) implying that blending, extrusion and molding can be conducting with thermal treatment at 80° C to 300° C. Dieckmann describes that after thermal processing the product is allowed to cool (p. 28, lines 29-30). Dieckmann discloses that the product can be extruded, pelletized and molded (p. 38, lines 32-33) and since extrusion can be performed with thermal treatment and product is cooled after thermal treatment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assume that pelletizing is performed on cooled product.
Chen teaches preparation of feather keratin PVA films (Abstract). Chen provides example of the product containing feather keratin, 15% of plasticizer, glycerol, and 40% of additive PVA, that is within or close to instant concentrations (paragraph 0060). The mechanical properties of several products are presented in Table 1. Table 1 shows that the elongation at break for the product with 15% glycerol and 40% PVA (p. 7 of original version, #5, second column) is 262%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Sharma and Aranberri and add biodegradable polymers as additives at 40-50 wt% to CF at 50-60 wt% from Aranberri teaching to the method of preparation of biopolymers described by Sharma and apply method of thermo-pressure processing in the presence of additives as described by Aranberri to biopolymers prepared by method described by Sharma. One would have been motivated to make this combination to produce lightweight thermal-insulating materials to reduce heat transfer and decrease energy consumption as described by Aranberri. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this combination since both Sharma and Aranberri describe methods of preparation of bioproducts from feather keratin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the crosslinker microcrystalline cellulose in Sharma teaching with citric acid as crosslinker from Esparza teaching. One would have been motivated to do so since Esparza showed that citric acid cross-linking provides water stability to polyvinyl alcohol/keratin polymer. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this combination since Sharma, Aranberri and Esparza describe methods of preparation of bioproducts from feathers keratin. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the amount of crosslinker, citric acid, can be optimized. One would have been motivated to optimize the amount of citric acid to reach the desired structural properties of the biopolymer. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this optimization because selection of the amount of component of the reaction is routine and conventional.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use steric acid and talc as fillers as described by Changping for method of preparation of biopolymer based on Sharma, Aranberri and Esparza teachings. One would have been motivated to make do that since Changping used talc and steric acid as filers for polymer containing similar components such as additives, like thermoplastic starch, and glycerol as plasticizer. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this combination since Sharma, Aranberri, Esparza and Changping describe methods of preparation of biopolymers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the amount of fillers, steric acid and talc, can be optimized. One would have been motivated to select the amount of fillers depending on the amount of other components of the biopolymer. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this optimization because selection of the amount of component of the reaction is routine and conventional.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add parameters of thermal processing and procedures of extrusion and pelletizing of the product prior to molding from Dieckmann teaching to method of preparation of biopolymers based on Sharma, Aranberri, Esparza and Changping teachings. One would have been motivated to make this combination since Dieckmann describes preparation of different bioproducts, i.e. biodegradable filler, insulation additive, packaging material, water-repellant or flame retardant material. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this combination since Sharma, Aranberri, Dieckmann and Esparza describe methods of preparation of bioproducts from feather keratin and Changping teach preparation of biopolymers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow Chen teaching and assume that the method of biopolymer production based on prior art of Sharma, Aranberri, Esparza, Changping and Dieckmann can produce product with the elongation of 262%. One would have been motivated to make this assumption since Chen teaches combination of feather keratin, plasticizer, glycerol, and additive PVA which are the same components as described by Sharma and Aranberri. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this combination since Sharma, Aranberri, Dieckmann, Esparza and Chen describe methods of preparation of bioproducts from feather keratin. Thus, Sharma, Aranberri, Esparza, Changping, Dieckmann and Chen teachings render claim 18 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (addressing p. 8-11 of the Remarks) that: “the non-obvious feature of the invention lies in (steps ii, iii, iv of amended claim 1) the extraction of keratin protein, polymerization along with thermal processing to form pellets and again thermal processing of the pellets in the presence of excipients and that “the claimed elongation is achieved after two thermal processing cycles”. Applicant argues (addressing p. 9 of the Remarks) that Sharma does not teach melt-blending at 100-130°C, extrusion, palletization, or that one or more thermal processing application involves an injection moulding step with a holding pressure in a range of 600 bars to 1000 bars to form a moulded polymer of a dumbbell shape; Aranberri does not teach extraction step of keratin from pre-treated feathers, extrusion, palletizing and thermal processing of pellets by re-melting; Dieckmann uses feathers directly in the blend instead of keratin protein extracted from feathers; and Chen does not teach extrusion, palletizing and subjecting pellets to thermal processing in the presence of excipients and fails to disclose the two time thermal processing-associated enhancement in the elongation properties. These arguments are not persuasive because:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In instant case, the rejection is based on combination of prior art of Sharma, Aranberri, Dieckmann and Chen as described in the rejection above and single reference does not teach all the limitations of claim 1. As described above, Sharma teaches pre-treatment of feathers, extraction of keratin in the presence of reducing agent and polymerization with plasticizer and thermal treatment at 60°C (p. 2158, right column, 4th and 5th paragraphs and p. 2159, right column, last paragraph). Aranberri teaches preparation of biopolymers with claimed additives that includes thermal processing of additives at 140°C and 170°C, addition of feathers and the second thermal processing of compression molding under pressure at 200°C with excipients (p. 4, 2nd paragraph). Dieckmann teaches thermal processing of keratin with additives at 80-300°C performed before, after or during article shaping and describes extrusion, pelletizing and moulding of the article and therefore the thermal processing can be envisioned to be applied during blending and extrusion steps (p. 28, lines 609, 12-14, 29-30, p.38, lines 32-33). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art of Sharma, Aranberri and Dieckmann with reasonably expected success since all references are directed to making biopolymers from feathers and blend ingredients, i.e. extracted keratin, plasticizer and additives, with thermal processing as described by Sharma and Aranberri using as parameters of thermal processing from Dieckmann, followed by procedures of extrusion and pelletizing of the product prior to molding based on Dieckmann teaching and proceed to thermal processing by pressure moulding as taught by Aranberri. Finally, the elongation of 262% obtained by Chen for biopolymer article made of feather keratin, plasticizer, glycerol, and additive, PVA (Table 1), which are the claimed components and are the same or similar components in Sharma and Aranberri teachings, indicates that the claimed elongation properties can be achieved and hence are expected to be reached following the combined procedures taught by Sharma, Aranberri and Dieckmann. Thus, the combination of prior art teaches all the limitations of claims 1, including two thermal processing cycles and makes claim 1 obvious.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., pressure in the range of 600 bars to 1000 bars and polymer of a dumbbell shape) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues (addressing p. 11 of the Remarks) that elongation at break recited in claim 1 is not an intended use but a measurable structural property of the moulded article and that the claimed elongation is achieved after two thermal processing cycles. These arguments are not persuasive because:
Since the combination of prior art teaches all the claimed steps as described above including the two thermal processing cycles and Chen provides example of elongation at 262% for the biopolymer with the claimed components, keratin blended with additive, glycerol, and plasticizer, PVA, similar to components in Sharma and Aranberri teaching, the prior art is capable to achieve the claimed elongation properties.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant argues (addressing p. 12 of the Remarks) that Bullions fails to teach pre-treatment of feathers, extraction of keratin, melting, extruding the dough, palletizing and thermal processing and attenuated elongation property. Regarding claim 18, Applicant argues (addressing p. 13-14 of the Remarks) that the process steps in Esparza and Changping are different from present invention and Esparza does not teach melting extrusion, palletizing and thermal processing of pellets at 100-200°C and Changping does not teach subjecting pellets to another cycle of thermal processing and both Esparza and Changping do not disclose achieving the enhanced elongation properties. These arguments are not persuasive because:
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected based on combination of prior art. The combination of prior art of Sharma, Aranberri, Dieckmann and Chen was described above. Bullions teaches that maleic anhydride can increase interaction between keratin and the polymer matrix (p. 3773, left column) providing motivation to try addition of maleic anhydride during biopolymer production based on combination of Sharma, Aranberri and Dieckmann teachings. Esparza teaches improvement in stability when using citric acid as a cross-linker for additive PVA in PVA/keratin polymers (8, left column, 2nd paragraph) providing motivation to use citric acid in preparation of biopolymer. Changping teaches talc and steric acid as fillers for polymer containing glycerol (instant plasticizer) and thermoplastic starch (instant additive) (p. 9, line 6, p. 11, lines 25-28) motivating one of ordinary skill in the art to use talc and steric acid as fillers in preparation of biopolymer from feathers.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 LIOUBOV G KOROTCHKINA whose telephone number is (571)270-0911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00-5:30.
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, Sharmila G Landau can be reached at (571)272-0614. 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.
/L.G.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights