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 December 1, 2025. Claims 1,2,5,7,11,18,20,22,29,30,33,35,40,47-49,54,60,61 and 65 are pending. Claims 3,4,6,8-10,12-17,19,21,23-28,31,32,34,36-39,41-46,50-53,55-59 and 62-64 have been cancelled. Claims 5,18,22,29,30,33,40 and 47 have been amended.
The rejection of claims 1,7,20,22,35,41,47,48,60 and 65 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Blanchard (WO 99/26595) and Chen (CN 1370856A) is withdrawn.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Blanchard (WO 99/26595) and Chen (CN 1370856A) for the reasons set forth below.
The rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Blanchard (WO 99/26595) and Chen (CN 1370856A) and further in view of Xu et al. (Controlled De-Cross-Linking and Disentanglement of Feather Keratin for Fiber preparation via novel Process. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2014, 2, 1404-1410) is withdrawn.
The rejection of Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Blanchard (WO 99/26595) and Chen (CN 1370856A) and further in view of Almedar (Flow behavior of regenerated wool-keratin protein in different mediums. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 35 (2005) 151-153 is withdrawn.
The rejection of Claim 33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Blanchard (WO 99/26595) and Chen (CN 1370856A) and further in view of King (US 6,973,931) is withdrawn.
The rejection of Claims 49 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Blanchard (WO 99/26595) and Chen (CN 1370856A) and further in view of Ghilardi (US 3,676,546) is withdrawn.
The rejection of Claim 61 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Blanchard (WO 99/26595) and Chen (CN 1370856A) and further in view of Patil (Enhancing Strength of Wool Fiber Using a Soy Flour Sugar-Based “Green” Cross-linker”, ACS Omega, 2019, 4, 5392-5401) is withdrawn.
Claims 1,7,20,22,35,40,47,48, 60 and 65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Chen (CN 1370856A) for the reasons set forth below.
Claims 2,11 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Chen (CN 1370856A) and further in view of Gosline (WO 03/069033) for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Chen (CN 1370856A) and further in view of Xu et al. (Controlled De-Cross-Linking and Disentanglement of Feather Keratin for Fiber preparation via novel Process. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2014, 2, 1404-1410) for the reason set forth below.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Chen (CN 1370856A) and further in view of Almedar (Flow behavior of regenerated wool-keratin protein in different mediums. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 35 (2005) 151-153 for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Chen (CN 1370856A) and further in view of King (US 6,973,931) for the reason set forth below.
Claims 49 and 54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Chen (CN 1370856A) and further in view of Ghilardi (US 3,676,546) for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 61 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Chen (CN 1370856A) and further in view of Patil (Enhancing Strength of Wool Fiber Using a Soy Flour Sugar-Based “Green” Cross-linker”, ACS Omega, 2019, 4, 5392-5401 for the reason 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 1,7,20,22,35,40,47,48, 60 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Chen (CN 1370856A).
Hoshino teaches preparing a keratin solution from a keratinous material such as feathers (paragraphs 0011,0018) wherein the keratin solution comprises a reducing agent (paragraph 0012) and extruding the reduced keratin solution through a needle, oxidizing with hydrogen peroxide or perchloric acids, winding and spinning with oxidation to crosslink the reduced keratin, stretching the fiber twice (drawing) before setting and annealing the fiber (setting) to produce keratin fibers in a continuous process (paragraph 0021, 0022, claim 1,8).
Hoshino does not teach oxidizing the fiber twice, the keratin % in the fiber, sodium dodecyl sulfate in the keratin solution and electrolyte in the first solution.
Chen teaches preparing regenerated keratin fibers from keratinous materials (page 2, paragraph 5) by dissolving keratin in sodium dodecyl sulfate and a reducing agent such as mercaptoethanol (page 3, paragraph 3; page 5, paragraph 4) to form a 10-30% keratin solution, extruding or spinning the solution into a coagulation batch comprising electrolytes such as NaCl followed by drawing, bleaching with hydrogen peroxide , washing and drying (page 3, fourth and last paragraph; page 5, last paragraph; page 6 step b.). Chen teaches using a first step of cold and a second step of hot stretching (drawing; page 5, paragraph 7). Chen teaches producing fibers of 100% protein, therefore 100% keratin (page 4, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method of Hoshino by drawing and oxidizing the treated fiber as Hoshino teaches oxidizing the first fiber in the spinning during drawing and Chen teaches oxidation using an oxidative bleach such as hydrogen peroxide can be performed again to bleach the formed drawn fibers. Hoshino teaches drawing by stretching two times and Chen exemplifies that a two stage two method drawing by stretching the first using cold stretching and then second using stretching in hot air is effective in producing fibers before washing and heat setting. Regarding the order of drawing and stretching once and then repeating, it would have been obvious to perform the process in this order as the prior art teach multiple drawing steps and oxidation after forming the fiber by drawing in a bath containing peroxide and then as a bleaching step after fiber is formed outside of the coagulation bath. 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). 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).
It would have been obvious to produce a keratin fiber with 100% keratin as Chen teaches the dissolution or keratin by reducing, spinning into a coagulation bath containing electrolyte and spinning, drawing the fiber, bleaching washing and drying are conventional process steps in producing regenerated keratin with good moisture absorption, gas permeability, dyeing property, skin friendly property and comfortable and smooth wearing. It would have been obvious to coagulate keratin in a bath with electrolyte as Chen teaches this is conventional in the art.
Claims 2,11 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Chen (CN 1370856A) and further in view of Gosline (WO 03/069033).
Hoshino and Chen are relied upon as set forth above.
Hoshino and Chen do not teach the strain of the fiber and the amount of beta-sheet crystallinity of the keratin fiber compared to the keratin raw material.
Gosline teaches that keratin fibers (paragraph 0024, 0061) are conventionally produced by spinning keratin solutions, using a 500% draw ratio and crosslinking to optimize stiffness and toughness (paragraph 0025-0026,0037-0038,0042-0044,0047). Gosline teaches fibers with at least 5% beta-sheet form wherein the beta-sheet imparts improved strength, stiffness and toughness (paragraph 0042) and strains of epsilon=0.025-1.0 (2.5-100%; paragraph 0075).
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 Hoshino and Chen by preparing keratin fibers with a draw ratio of 500%, a strain of about 5% to about 30% and a beta-sheet crystallinity of at least 85% compared to the keratin raw material as Gosline teaches these parameters impart improved strength, stiffness and toughness to the fibers produced.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Chen (CN 1370856A) and further in view of Xu et al. (Controlled De-Cross-Linking and Disentanglement of Feather Keratin for Fiber preparation via novel Process. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2014, 2, 1404-1410).
Hoshino and Chen are relied upon as set forth above.
Hoshino and Chen do not teach the diameter of the keratin fiber.
Xu teaches keratin fibers are conventionally prepared by dissolving keratin materials such as chicken feathers, in reducing agent (page 1405, experimental section, controlled cleavage of Disulfide Crosslinks in Feathers) and spinning the 30% keratin solution containing SDS into a batch containing electrolyte Na2SO4 and washing the fibers, drawing twice and annealing (page 1405, experimental section, Wet Spinning of Keratin Fibers). Xu teaches fibers of diameters as low as 20 µm can be produced since the SDS enhances the orderedness of the keratin by disentangling and aligning the keratin (page 1409, conclusions).
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 Hoshino and Chen by preparing keratin fibers with a diameters of 20-30µm as Xu teaches this is conventional in similar processes.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Chen (CN 1370856A) and further in view of Almedar (Flow behavior of regenerated wool-keratin protein in different mediums. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 35 (2005) 151-153.
Hoshino and Chen are relied upon as set forth above.
Hoshino and Chen do not teach the flow behavior index.
Almedar teaches the flow behavior of keratin solutions impacts the stability of the solutions and therefore should be considered for high stability and easy processibility (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 Hoshino and Chen by selecting aa keratin solution with the claimed flow behavior index of 0.8 to about 0.95 at 25°C at 18% by weight keratin as Almedar teaches the flow behavior of the keratin solutions impacts the stability of the solution and the processibility. Selecting an appropriate flow behavior index to maximize the stability and processibility of the keratin solution into fibers would be within routine skill in the art and also a result effective variable
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Chen (CN 1370856A) and further in view of King (US 6,973,931).
Hoshino and Chen are relied upon as set forth above.
Hoshino and Chen do not teach using a spinneret to extrude the fibers.
King teaches keratin fibers are produced from keratin sources such as feathers which are chemically dissolved and extruded through a spinneret to form keratin fibers which don’t stick together or deform followed by oxidizing, washing and hardening (column 157, lines 13-24,25-50,62-65; column 158, 1-15).
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 Hoshino and Chen extruding the fibers in a spinneret as King teaches this is a known apparatus for producing fibers which won’t deform or stick together from keratin solution.
Claims 49 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Chen (CN 1370856A) and further in view of Ghilardi (US 3,676,546).
Hoshino and Chen are relied upon as set forth above.
Hoshino and Chen do not teach the winding the treated fiber and then oxidizing the treated fiber or washing with a surfactant/ water solution.
Ghilardi teaches it is known to set hair (keratin) fibers by treating with reducing agents to reduce the disulfide bonds and roll the hair up on rollers (winding) and applying an oxidizing agent to reform the disulfide bridges followed by treating with a neutralizing solution containing water and surfactant (column 1, lines 5-16). Ghilardi teaches neutralizing by washing in a solution of water and surfactant (column 4, lines 63-72).
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 Hoshino and Chen by treating keratin fibers in wound form with the oxidizing agent and washing with surfactant water solution to set the fibers as Ghilardi teaches this is a conventional step long known in hair (keratin fiber) setting to reform the disulfide bonds and permanently set the hair fiber followed by washing in an aqueous surfactant solution to neutralize the fiber.
Claim 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Chen (CN 1370856A) and further in view of Patil (Enhancing Strength of Wool Fiber Using a Soy Flour Sugar-Based “Green” Cross-linker”, ACS Omega, 2019, 4, 5392-5401.
Hoshino and Chen are relied upon as set forth above.
Hoshino and Chen do not teach the treating with oxidized saccharide.
Patil teaches treating keratin fibers with oxidized sugars (oxidized saccharide) effectively crosslink keratin proteins and produce stronger fibers with increased tensile strength (abstract; page 5393, left column, last 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 Hoshino and Chen by treating keratin fibers with an oxidized saccharide such as oxidized sugars as Patil teaches treating keratin fibers with oxidized sugars effectively crosslink keratin proteins and produce stronger fibers with increased tensile strength.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshino (JP 2009144282A) in view of Blanchard (WO 99/26595) and Chen (CN 1370856A).
Hoshino and Chen are relied upon as set forth above.
Hoshino and Chen do not specify keratin fibers with at least 70% of the disulfide crosslinkages compared to the disulfide crosslinkages in the keratinous material.
Blanchard teaches keratin fibers such as wool are oxidized in a first oxidation, dissolved in reducing agent to cleave the disulfide bonds (page 7) and then crosslinked in a second oxidation to reform 100% of the disulfide bonds wherein the oxidizing agents used include hydrogen peroxide (page 8-9, claims 1-4).
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 Hoshino and Chen by producing a fiber with at least 70% of the disulfide crosslinkages compared to the amount of disulfide crosslinkages in the keratinous material as Blanchard emphasizes the oxidation of the fibers after reduction reforms 100% of the disulfide bonds broken in the reduction step.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Hoshino in view of Chen, alone and further in view of Blanchard have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner argues that applicant’s claims are directed to a method wherein a keratin solution is extruded to form a first fiber and the fiber is drawn and oxidized and then further drawn and oxidized one or more times before setting to form a final fiber product. It is the examiners position that Hoshino teaches oxidizing the fiber while the fiber is in the nozzle during extrusion followed by stretching the fiber two times (drawing) and annealing the fiber (setting). Hoshino in whole teaches extruding a keratin solution to form a first fiber, an oxidation step for crosslinking the fiber during extrusion and two separate stretches to draw the fiber after fiber formation and setting the fiber after the drawing is completed. This differs from applicant’s claims in that the first oxidizing step claimed by applicant is not present before the first drawing and the second oxidizing step is not present after the second drawing. Chen teaches it is conventional to spin keratin solutions into fibers followed by drawing (stretching 4-8 times) and bleaching with an oxidizing agent to produce a white fiber (page 3, paragraphs 3-6, page 4, first paragraph). Chen teaches stretching 6 times and carrying the procedure out twice, once by cold stretching and once by hot stretching (page 5, steps 3 and 4).
It is the examiner’s position that t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform a method in a drawn fiber was first drawn and then oxidized followed by further drawing and oxidizing repetitions before setting the fiber as Hoshino teaches oxidizing during fiber formation to crosslink the fibers and drawing two times and Chen teaches oxidizing to bleach the fiber after fiber formation and drawing to stretch the fiber. While the order of drawing and oxidizing steps for the prior art are different than the instant invention, multiple stretching (drawing) and oxidizing steps are taught by Hoshino and Chen for the benefits of drawing the fibers in hot and cold drawing steps and oxidizing to crosslink and bleach the fibers. Nothing unobvious is seen in changing the order of drawing and oxidizing followed by further drawing and oxidizing repetitions as Hoshino and Chen together teach the benefits of oxidation at different times during the fiber making and different types of drawing. Applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of the claimed drawing and oxidation steps, therefore changing the order of steps perform a first oxidizing step in the nozzle, cold drawing and then hot drawing and bleaching with an oxidizing agent is obvious. In step (ii) applicant simply says a fiber must be subject to drawing and oxidizing to form a treated fiber, not that the drawing must be performed before the oxidizing as no exact order of treatment is indicated. Similarly in step (iii) drawing and oxidizing steps are performed on a fiber that has been drawn and oxidized, but the secondary drawing and oxidation steps order is also not recited, rather each of these steps must be performed on the treated fiber but can be in any order. Since Hoshino teaches oxidizing during extruding from the nozzle followed by stretching (drawing), step (ii) is met. A further step of drawing and oxidizing can be performed on the fiber of Hoshino as Hen teaches the drawing after extruding is a carried out twice and then a oxidation step by bleaching is performed. The combined references teach a extruding step, oxidation during extruding (1st oxidation), cold drawing (1st drawing), hot drawing (2nd drawing) and oxidation bleaching (2nd oxidation).
Additionally the order of drawing and stretching has not been demonstrated to be critical, therefore performing the oxidations and stretches in a different order would be expected to produce a similar product since the same stretches and same oxidations would be expected to produce the same final fiber product. 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). 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).
Regarding claim 29, Blanchard is relied upon simply to demonstrate that oxidation reforms the crosslinks of the disulfide bonds that were cleaved during the prior reducing treatment and that oxidation can be performed until 100% of the disulfide linkages are reformed. Since Hoshino teaches crosslinking with the oxidizing agent, it would be within routine skill in the art to arrive at the claimed degree of crosslinking to reform the broken disulfide linkages to arrive at values at least 70% compared to the original keratinous material. Crosslinking to a desired degree to reform the disulfide linkages would be obvious in a method that teaches oxidizing to crosslink keratin fibers which were previously subject to disulfide bond cleaving a reducing treatment. While Blanchard is directed to hydrogel formation, the teachings are reasonably pertinent as the same reducing of keratin to break disulfide bridges to solubilize the keratin and reforming the bridges by oxidation is taught. Accordingly the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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