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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Applicant’s amendments and accompanying remarks filed 7/2/25 have been fully considered and entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 6, 8-9 and 16-18 are canceled. Claims 22-24 are withdrawn. Claim 25 has been added as requested. Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are found sufficient to overcome the anticipation rejections made over the cited prior art of WO2017011679A1. Specifically, the cited prior art of WO2017011679A1 does not teach the claimed shrinkage rate property. As such, the anticipation rejections set forth in the previous Action dated 10/7/25 are hereby withdrawn. However, the Examiner maintains the obviousness/inherency type rejections made over the cited prior art of WO2017011679A1 and Applicant’s arguments not found persuasive of patentability for reasons set forth below.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicants assert that the cited prior art of WO2017011679A1 is directed to applying a coating of silk fibroin material to an article of clothing to impart heat resistance. Applicants submit that the actual fur of WO ‘679 is not comprised of the artificial protein fiber, but rather, only the coating applied to the artificial is. Applicants further submit the present application uses the artificial protein fiber as the structural fibers of the artificial fur, and not just as a coating. These arguments are not persuasive. In response, the Examiner is of the position that Applicant’s arguments not considered commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. Applicants recite the limitation of “the artificial protein fiber comprises a spun fiber of at least one of a natural protein and a manufactured protein, the at least one of a natural protein and a manufactured protein comprising amino acids,”. Applicants have not specifically limited the structure of the fiber to comprising an artificial protein fiber filament or strand and/or a fiber structure that comprises an artificial protein fiber filament/strand and at least one filament/strand of a natural protein/manufactured protein (e.g., a composite filament or a multi-filament yarn). As such, the Examiner is of the position that a spun fiber comprising a natural protein filament/strand and a coating of an artificial protein meets limitation of an artificial protein fiber that comprises a spun fiber of at least one of a natural protein and a manufactured protein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
5. Claim(s) 1-5,7,10,13,15,19,20,21 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO2017011679A1.
With regard to claims 1-2, the published WO document teaches an aqueous solution of pure silk fibroin- based protein fragments used to make products such as apparel, padding, shoes, gloves, luggage, furs (see description). The WO document further teach that the silk-fibroin can be spun into fibers (see description). In an embodiment, an aqueous solution of pure silk fibroin-based protein fragments of the present disclosure can be spun into fibers to make a silk fabric and/or silk fabric blend with other materials known in the apparel industry. With regard to the claimed natural protein fibers, the published WO document teaches fibers or yarns of natural fiber or yarn selected from the group consisting of cotton, alpaca fleece, alpaca wool, lama fleece, lama wool, cotton, cashmere, sheep fleece, sheep wool, and combinations thereof (see description). With regard to claim 25, the WO document teach the claimed woven or knitted fibrous structures (see summary of invention). With regard to claims 3-4, the published WO document teach the that the silk-based proteins or fragments thereof may be natural silk-based proteins or fragments thereof that may be selected from the group consisting of spider silk-based proteins or fragments thereof, silkworm silk-based proteins or fragments thereof, and combinations thereof (see description). In some embodiments, the natural silk-based proteins or fragments may be silkworm silk-based proteins or fragments thereof, and the silkworm silk-based proteins or fragments thereof may be Bombyx mori silk-based proteins or fragments thereof (see description). With regard to claim 5, the published WO document teach that the silk fibroin is shrink resistant (see description). With regard to claim 10, the WO document teach that the fiber or yarn can be treated with fiber or a yarn is treated with a polymer, such as polyglycolide (PGA), polyethylene glycols, copolymers of glycolide, glycolide/L-lactide copolymers (PGA/PLLA), glycolide/trimethylene carbonate copolymers (PGA/TMC), polylactides (PLA), stereocopolymers of PLA, poly-L-lactide (PLLA), poly-DL-lactide (PDLLA), L-lactide/DL-lactide copolymers, co-polymers of PLA, lactide/tetramethylglycolide copolymers, lactide/trimethylene carbonate copolymers, lactide/5-valerolactone copolymers, lactide/s-caprolactone copolymers, polydepsipeptides, PLA/polyethylene oxide copolymers, unsymmetrically 3,6-substituted poly- l,4-dioxane-2,5-di ones, poly-P-hydroxybutyrate (PHBA), ΡΗΒΑ/β-hydroxy valerate copolymers (PHBA/HVA), poly-P-hydroxypropionate (PHP A), poly-p-dioxanone (PDS), poly-ς-valerolactone, poly-ε-caprolactone, methylmethacrylate-N-vinyl pyrrolidine copolymers, polyesteramides, polyesters of oxalic acid, polydihydropyrans, polyalkyl-2- cyanoacrylates, polyurethanes (PU), polyvinylalcohols (PVA), polypeptides, poly-β- malic acid (PMLA), poly-β-alkanoic acids, polyvinylalcohol (PVA), polyethyleneoxide (PEO), chitine polymers, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyasetal, polyamides, polyesters, polysulphone, polyether ether ketone, polyethylene terephthalate, polycarbonate, polyaryl ether ketone, and polyether ketone ketone. Any of these polymers/compositions would impart the claimed “functionality”. With regard to claim 13, the published WO document teach that in some embodiments, the method may include heating the silk fibroin coated textile to modify a third selected property of the silk fibroin coated textile. In some embodiments, the first selected property may include one or more of an antimicrobial property, a water repellant property, an oil repellant property, a flame-retardant property, a coloring property, a fabric softening property, a stain repellant property, a pH adjusting property, an anticrocking property, an antipilling property, and an antifelting property. In some embodiments, the second selected property may include one or more of wetting time, absorption rate, spreading speed, accumulative one-way transport, and overall moisture management capability. In some embodiments, the third selected property may include one or more of fabric hand, fabric stretch, and drapability (see description). With regard to claim 15, one or more chemical agents may be applied, and may include a first chemical agent, second chemical agent, third chemical agent, and the like, where the chemical agents may the same or a combination of two or more of the chemical agents described herein, in some embodiments, chemical agents may provide selected properties to coated textile (e.g., fabric) including, but not limited to, an antimicrobial property, a water repellant property, an oil repellant property, a coloring property, a flame retardant property, a fabric softening property, a pH adjusting property, an anticrocking property, an antipiiling properly, and/or an antifelting property. In some embodiments, chemical agents may include, but are not limited to, an antimicrobial agent, acidic agents (e.g., Bronsted acids, citric acid, acetic acid, etc.), a softener, a water repellant agent, an oil repellant agent, a dye, a flame retardant, a fabric softener, a pH adjusting agent (e.g., an acidic agent), an anticrocking agent, an antipiiling agent, and/or an antifelting agent. Such chemical agents may include, but are not limited to, softeners (e.g., chemical fabric softeners), acidic agents, antimicrobials, dyes, finishing agents including monomers (e.g., melted polyester), and combinations thereof. In some embodiments, SFS may be used in an SFS coating, where such coating includes one or more chemical agents (e.g., a silicone).
With regard to claims 1 and 7, the published WO document does not teach the claimed shrinkage rate. The Examiner is of the position that absent unexpected results or other evidence that contradicts a lack of inherency, the claimed shrinkage rate limitations would be expected to be present in the synthetic protein fiber of the published WO document. Support for the Examiner’s position is found in the use of a like artificial protein fiber made. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claim 19, the published WO document does not teach the claimed LOI of 26 or more. The Examiner is of the position that absent unexpected results or other evidence that contradicts a lack of inherency, the claimed LOI of 26 or more would be expected to be present in the synthetic protein fiber of the published WO document. Support for the Examiner’s position is found in the use of a like artificial protein fiber made. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claims 20 and 21, the published WO document does not teach the claimed moisture absorbing or heat retention properties. The Examiner is of the position that absent unexpected results or other evidence that contradicts a lack of inherency, the claimed moisture absorbing or heat retention properties would be expected to be present in the synthetic protein fiber of the published WO document. Support for the Examiner’s position is found in the use of a like artificial protein fiber made. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 11, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2017011679A1 as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of WO 99/49125.
With regard to claim 11, the published WO document does not teach the claimed cross-linking limitations.
The published WO ‘125 document teach covalently bonding a water resisting composition to a synthetic fiber including proteinaceous fibers (title, abstract, page 8, 10-20). The published WO ‘125 document teach covalently bonding hydrophobic groups to the fibrous substate (page 8, 25-page 9, 5 and page 13, 5-10). The published WO ‘125 document does teach cross-linking (page 23, 15). The combination of cited prior art does not specifically teach the claimed polypeptides, reagents and reactive groups, however, the Examiner is of the position that since the WO ‘125 document teach imparting water resistance in addition to various other properties to a synthetic fiber it would be within the skill of a person of a worker in the art to use known cross-linking methods including the typically used constituents such as peptides, reagents and reactive groups to achieve the desired cross-linking and resulting desired fiber property. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199, 125 USPQ 416, 418 (CCPA 1960).
With regard to claims 12 and 14, the published WO document does not specifically teach rendering the synthetic protein fiber water resistant.
The published WO ‘125 document teach covalently bonding a water resisting composition to a synthetic fiber including proteinaceous fibers (title, abstract, page 8, 10-20). The published WO ‘125 document teach covalently bonding hydrophobic groups to the fibrous substate (page 8, 25-page 9, 5 and page 13, 5-10). The published WO ‘125 document teach covalent bonding with modifiable groups such as hydroxyl (page 13, 5-15). Hydrophobic groups include hydrocarbons and fluorocarbons (page 17, 5-15). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to covalently bond a water resisting composition such as the ones disclosed by the WO ‘125 document to the artificial protein (silk fibroin) based fiber of WO2017011679A1.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789