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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 3, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1,2 and 4-20 are pending. Claim 3 has been cancelled. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1,2,4-8 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbiati (WO 2013/114414)
Robbiati teaches single tanning agents compositions comprising 5-66.6% zeolites, 5-33% weak acids and at least 5% tanning agents (page 6, lines 3-9, page 15, claims 1, 4 and 5, page 17, claims 13 and 14). Robbiati teaches the tanning agent can be gallic acid (page 6, lines 16). Robbiati teaches the weak acids can be selected from mixtures of formic acid, oxalic acid, citric acid and tartaric acid (page 7, lines 7-8). Robbiati teaches no chrome is present (page 5, lines 21-26). No chromium salts, aluminum sulfate, metal salt tanning agents, synthetic tanning agents or vegetable tanning agents need be present in the single tanning agent composition as they are alternate embodiments. Robbiati teaches combining the zeolite powder and anhydrous weak acids and tanning agents together before putting in an aqueous environment, therefore the water content before putting in an aqueous environment is 0% since no water is added (see example 1). Robbiati teaches the tanning agent doesn’t dissolve until an aqueous medium (water) is present (page 7, lines 12-14).
Robbiati does not specify the individual concentrations of the first second and third weak acids.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to prepare a single tanning agent composition in the form of a powder to be used in leather tanning comprising at least 50% zeolite, less than 25% water, 2-35% of a first weak acid and 2-25% of each the second and third weak acids as Robbiati teaches chromium free tanning with zeolite compositions comprising overlapping concentrations of zeolites and 5-33% blends of two or three weak acids selected from formic acid, oxalic acid, citric acid and tartaric acid and 5% or more of gallic acid for effectively tanning leather. Selecting three weak acids in the claimed concentrations would be obvious as Robbiati allows for the presence of mixtures of weak acids in concentrations of 5-33% for dissolving the zeolite in the presence of water during tanning and a gallic acid as a tanning agent at 5% or greater. Selecting from prior art disclosed functionally equivalent acid blends and gallic acid tanning agents taught to be used in mixtures with zeolites at prior art disclosed effective ranges is obvious to produce a powder acid treated zeolite with no water, aluminum sulfate, synthetic tanning agents, vegetable tannin agents or metal salt tanning agents as Robbiati teaches these compositions are effective at binding amino acids constituting the collagen fiber of the animal skin during tanning to produce a tanning effect without the pollution load of other tanning methods. Robbiati emphasizes the acid treated powder does not dissolve until an aqueous solution is present, which can be done in the tanning bath. Therefore the tanning agent can be present as a powder until added to water to prepare a tanning bath.
Claims 1,2,4-8 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robbiati (WO 2013/114414) in view of Van Der Burgh (WO 2014/162059).
Robbiati teaches single tanning agents compositions comprising 5-66.6% zeolites, 5-33% weak acids and at least 5% tanning agents (page 6, lines 3-9, page 15, claims 1, 4 and 5, page 17, claims 13 and 14). Robbiati teaches the tanning agent can be gallic acid (page 6, lines 16). Robbiati teaches the weak acids can be selected from mixtures of formic acid, oxalic acid, citric acid and tartaric acid (page 7, lines 7-8). Robbiati teaches no chrome is present (page 5, lines 21-26). No chromium salts, aluminum sulfate, metal salt tanning agents, synthetic tanning agents or vegetable tanning agents need be present in the single tanning agent composition as they are alternate embodiments. Robbiati teaches combining the zeolite powder and anhydrous weak acids and tanning agents together before putting in an aqueous environment (see example 1). Robbiati teaches the tanning agent doesn’t dissolve until an aqueous medium (water) is present (page 7, lines 12-14).
Robbiati does not specify the individual concentrations of the first second and third weak acids or the water content.
Van Der Burgh teaches that powdery zeolite compositions treated with weak acids such as formic acid (page 10, lines 29-32) and complexing agents such as citric acid, phtalic acid and tartaric acid or mixtures thereof (page 12, lines 1-11) and have a moisture content of less than 25% (page 14, lines 26-32) to enhance the flowability of the zeolite/weak acid composition as a dried powder(page 9, lines 31-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to prepare a single tanning agent composition in the form of a powder to be used in leather tanning comprising at least 50% zeolite, less than 25% water, 2-35% of a first weak acid and 2-25% of each the second and third weak acids as Robbiati teaches chromium free tanning with zeolite compositions comprising overlapping concentrations of zeolites and 5-33% blends of two or three weak acids selected from formic acid, oxalic acid, citric acid and tartaric acid and 5% or more of gallic acid for effectively tanning leather. Selecting three weak acids in the claimed concentrations would be obvious as Robbiati allows for the presence of mixtures of weak acids in concentrations of 5-33% for dissolving the zeolite in the presence of water during tanning and a gallic acid as a tanning agent at 5% or greater. Selecting from prior art disclosed functionally equivalent acid blends and gallic acid tanning agents taught to be used in mixtures with zeolites at prior art disclosed effective ranges is obvious to produce a powder acid treated zeolite with no water, aluminum sulfate, synthetic tanning agents, vegetable tannin agents or metal salt tanning agents as Robbiati teaches these compositions are effective at binding amino acids constituting the collagen fiber of the animal skin during tanning to produce a tanning effect without the pollution load of other tanning methods. Robbiati emphasizes the acid treated powder does not dissolve until an aqueous solution is present, which can be done in the tanning bath. Therefore the tanning agent can be present as a powder until added to water to prepare a tanning bath.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the zeolites treated with weak acids of Robbiati by reducing the moisture content to less than 25% as Van Der Burgh teaches similar zeolites treated with similar weak acids for tanning of leather benefit for moisture contents of less than 25% as this improves the adsorption of the acids onto the zeolite and improves the flowability of the zeolite treated weak acid powder. Robbiati further wants the zeolite to dissolve in aqueous solution at the time of tanning so reducing the moisture content to as close to 0% prior to using would be advantageous for storage stability and prevention of premature dissolution of the zeolite.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding Robbiati alone or in view of Van der Burgh have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner argues that even if Robbiati discloses syntans and even if they are preferred they are not required and all embodiments of the prior art must be considered. The prior art is further not limited to the teachings of the working examples as they are just a subset of all the possible embodiments disclosed in the prior art. All disclosures of the prior art, including non-preferred embodiment, must be considered. See In re Lamberti and Konort, 192 USPQ 278 (CCPA 1967); In re Snow 176 USPQ, 328, 329 (CCPA 1973). Non-preferred embodiments can be indicative of obviousness, see Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc. 10 USPQ 2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Lamberti, 192 USPQ 278(CCPA 1976); In re Kohler, 177 USPQ 399. A reference is not limited to the working examples, see In re Fracalossi, 215 USPQ 569 (CCPA 1982). IN lines 10-17 of page 6, Robbiati teaches tannic acid and tanning syntans as equivalent and preferred as the “in particular” language signifies and the selection of tannic acid is only from a group of 25 possibilities. Robbiati teaches the examples are explanatory and absolutely not limitative of the inventions scope (Page 7, lines 15-17).
If Robbiati intended for syntan to be required in every embodiment, it would have been listed on its own as an essential ingredient. Instead Robbiati presents a list wherein any species can be selected. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could select the tannic acid from the list as the teachings permit this substitution. Even if the results using tannic acid instead of inferior to syntans would prove inferior, which the examiner argues has not been demonstrated and is simply a conclusory argument as no data have tested tannic acid, Robbiati still allows for an embodiment where tannic acids are used instead of syntans. Robbiati clearly acknowledges even within the selection of components for the compositions, that variations will occur. But variations do not make a composition unusable. A reference is not limited to only its most effective compositions and the prior art does not need to exemplify every possible combination of ingredients. A range of compositions can provide a usable range of efficacy. Applicant’s claims are not limited to the most successful compositions of the invention. Example 2A to 2C only test a combination of citric acid with one of formic acid, oxalic acid or sodium bisulfate at specific concentrations. It is noted that applicant’s own claims permit this combination of components at the claimed concentrations and therefore applicant’s own claims contain inferior formulations. This is not representative of the broad nature of applicant’s claims which permit combinations of two to three monocarboxylic acids at 2-35% or 2-25% concentrations, respectively, (claim 1), more particularly blends of formic acid, oxalic acid, citric acid and/or sodium bisulfate (claim 6).
Regarding Van der Burgh, the reference teaches keeping zeolite moisture contents below 20% by weight allows for better adsorption of acids such as formic acid and enhanced flowability of the treated zeolite (page 9, lines 31-34). Van der Burgh is not relied upon for other elements of the composition as they are already taught in Robbiati. Adjusting the moisture content of the zeolites to below 20% is obvious so the acids adsorb better and the compound has advanced flowability. Example 2A to 2C only test a combination of citric acid with one of formic acid, oxalic acid or sodium bisulfate at specific concentrations. It is noted that applicant’s own claims permit this combination of components at the claimed concentrations and therefore applicant’s own claims contain inferior formulations or unsatisfactory formulations. These limited results do not negate the much broader disclosure and embodiments of Robbiati, alone or in view of Van der Burgh. 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 at 571-272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights