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 .
Claims 1-9,13 and 14 are pending. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9,13 and 14 in the reply filed on November 20, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 10-12 and 15-24 have been cancelled by applicant. Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 3-4, the claim recites “including comprising” which is redundant. Only one term “including” or “comprising” should be recited. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 in step b) recites “predefined ratio” but does not give any indication as to what the ratio range is or how it becomes defined which makes the claim indefinite. For examination purposes the “predefined ratio” of claims 1,2 and 4-9 was determined to be any value since no range is present in the claims. Claim 3 defines the ratio so is not indefinite. Regarding the limitation of “predetermined sufficient time” in claim 1, this was interpreted by the examiner to be any amount of time sufficient to produce and loosening of attached wool or hair”. Claims 2 and 4-9 are also rejected for being dependent upon claim 1 and inheriting the same deficiency.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites “organic acid is selected from” and then lists “boric acid” which is an inorganic acid. Boric acid is not an organic acid. Applicant in claim 5 recognizes boric acid is an inorganic acid, which is the correct designation.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “alkali and alkaline metal fluorides”, and the claim also recites “preferably the metal fluoride is sodium fluoride” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 7 recites the addition of protease enzymes but does not specify what composition or in which step they are added. The examiner interpreted that the proteases could be added in any step of claim 1. Claim 8 is also rejected for being dependent upon claim 7 and inheriting the same deficiency.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 14, line 4, applicant recites “chemical solution, salt additive” which is indefinite because applicant does not clarify if the chemical additive and salt solution one composition or if they are both required or only one must be present. The examiner is also unclear if the dewooling step paint composition is the chemical solution, salt additive or if the paint is a distinct composition in a pretreatment step before applying a different chemical solution, salt additive. In claim 1 the chemical solution and salt additive are the same as the paint in claim 14.
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowden (US 2006/0149040) in view of Muench (US 1,967,679).
Snowden teaches a method for producing collagen from an animal skin (abstract, paragraph 0090) by applying an organic acid buffer solution containing acetic acid or citric acid (paragraph 0013), anhydrous sodium acetate and water (paragraph 0036) to the animal skin and incubating the treated skin for a sufficient time to allow the wool and hair to be loosened or removed (paragraph 0014). Snowden teaches the incubation temperature is between 20-40°C and the incubation time is between 8-27 hours (paragraph 0037). Snowden exemplifies using a composition of 40% (w/w) glacial acetic acid in water and adding 20% anhydrous sodium acetate (paragraph 0036). Snowden teaches applying the solution by spraying, painting or dipping and diluting the solution 10 fold with water if dipping (paragraph 0037). Snowden teaches extracting collagen from the treated skin by applying a protease containing solution (paragraphs 0039,0046,0049-0050).
Snowden does not teach adding inorganic acid to the chemical solution, the predefined ratio of organic acid, water and sodium acetate of 1:1:0.5, the salt additive concentration of 1.4-2%.
Muench teaches that applying a solution of weak acids such as boric acid to raw hides substantially assist in loosening the epidermal layer and the hairs (page 1, lines 98-102; page 3, lines 55-57). Muench teaches the acid treatment is especially useful for removing wool from sheepskins because the wool is protected (page 2, line 9-12).
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 Snowden by adding boric acid as an inorganic acid additive because Muench teaches that applying a solution of weak acids such as boric acid to raw hides substantially assist in loosening the epidermal layer and the hairs and the acid treatment is especially useful for removing wool from sheepskins because the wool is protected. Selecting the concentration of boric acid to be the claimed 1.4-2% of the chemical solution or the ratio of organic acid, water and sodium acetate to 1:1:0.5 could be achieved through routine experimentation as the amounts of each chemical compounds would directly impact the loosening of the hair to ease in removal of animal hair or wool.
Regarding claim 6, is claim 6 was written in independent form, sodium fluoride would still be an optional component of the claims as metal fluoride is an alternative embodiment in claim 1.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowden (US 2006/0149040) in view of Michel (US 1,767,536).
Snowden teaches a method for producing collagen from an animal skin (abstract, paragraph 0090) by applying an organic acid buffer solution containing acetic acid or citric acid (paragraph 0013), anhydrous acetic acid and water (paragraph 0036) to the animal skin and incubating the treated skin for a sufficient time to allow the wool and hair to be loosened or removed (paragraph 0014). Snowden teaches the incubation temperature is between 20-40°C and the incubation time is between 8-27 hours (paragraph 0037). Snowden exemplifies using a composition of 40% (w/w) glacial acetic acid in water and adding 20% anhydrous sodium acetate (paragraph 0036). Snowden teaches applying the solution by spraying, painting or dipping and diluting the solution 10 fold with water if dipping (paragraph 0037). Snowden teaches extracting collagen from the treated skin by applying a protease containing solution (paragraphs 0039,0046,0049-0050).
Snowden does not teach adding metal fluorides to the chemical solution, the predefined ratio of organic acid, water and sodium acetate of 1:1:0.5, the salt additive concentration of 1.4-2%.
Michel teaches dehairing animal hides and skins is effectively accomplished by using acid fungal protease enzymes such as Aspergillus orzae proteases (page 1, lines 13-21) wherein 0.1-5% sodium fluoride is added as a preservative to the dehairing composition (page 2, lines 3-9).
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 Snowden by adding sodium fluoride as a metal fluoride and Aspergillus orzae protease as an acid fungal proteases to a dehairing treatment for animal hides and skins because Michel teaches that applying a solution of acid fungal proteases and a 0.1-5% sodium fluoride preservative allows for the efficient hair removal from animal hides. Using known effective dehairing agents in art recognized effective concentrations in methods also directed to removing hair from animal hides is obvious to try.
Regarding claim 5, is claim 5 was written in independent form, boric acid would still be an optional component of the claims as inorganic acid is an alternative embodiment in claim 1.
Claims 1-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowden (US 2006/0149040) in view of Michel (US 1,767,536) and further in view of Muench (US 1,967,679).
Snowden and Michel are relied upon as set forth above.
Snowden and Michel do not teach adding boric acid.
Muench teaches that applying a solution of weak acids such as boric acid to raw hides substantially assist in loosening the epidermal layer and the hairs (page 1, lines 98-102; page 3, lines 55-57). Muench teaches the acid treatment is especially useful for removing wool from sheepskins because the wool is protected (page 2, line 9-12).
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 Snowden and Michel by adding boric acid as an inorganic acid additive because Muench teaches that applying a solution of weak acids such as boric acid to raw hides substantially assist in loosening the epidermal layer and the hairs and the acid treatment is especially useful for removing wool from sheepskins because the wool is protected. Selecting the combined concentration of boric acid and sodium fluoride to be the claimed 1.4-2% of the chemical solution or the ratio of organic acid, water and sodium acetate to 1:1:0.5 could be achieved through routine experimentation as the amounts of each chemical compounds would directly impact the loosening of the hair to ease in removal of animal hair or wool. Muench exemplifies 0.3% boric acid in example 9 (M/20 boric acid = 1M/20= 0.05M boric acid *61.83 g/mol= 3.09g boric acid /1000g water*100%=0.3% boric acid). Michel teaches 0.1-5% sodium fluoride. Selecting from the se concentrations would permit a total amount of salt additives of boric acid and sodium fluoride to be between 1.4-2% as applicant claims.
Regarding claim 14, Muench teaches dewooling sheepskin and Snowden teaches painting the solution onto the skin for unhairing. Since the unhairing components taught by Snowden, Michel and Muench in combination are applied to the hide as a solution and also are known to be applied as a paint, the paint application meets the dewooling and applying steps of claim 14.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snowden (US 2006/0149040) in view of Fenyes (WO 2006/096159) and Biyu (CN 101235421A).
Snowden teaches a method for producing collagen from an animal skin such as cattle, sheep and pigs (mammalian animal skins, abstract, paragraphs 0090,0012,0023,0029,0056) by applying an organic acid buffer solution containing acetic acid or citric acid (chemical solution, paragraph 0013), anhydrous sodium acetate (salt additive) and water (paragraph 0036) to the animal skin and incubating the treated skin for a sufficient time to allow the wool and hair to be loosened or removed (paragraph 0014). Snowden teaches extracting collagen from the treated skin by applying a protease containing solution (paragraphs 0039,0046,0049-0050).
Snowden does not teach washing in detergent and sodium metabisulphite.
Fenyes teaches that washing animal hides with water and surfactant solutions before dehairing is conventional to remove debris (paragraph 0003).
Biyu teaches that sodium metabisulfite solutions are used in animal hide unhairing and skin loosening and as a swelling regulator ((page 5, paragraph 2; claim 7).
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 Snowden by washing animal hides with surfactant (detergent) solutions prior to unhairing as Fenyes teaches this step is conventionally performed to clean the hide by removing debris before further chemical treatment, in particular enzyme treatment and unhairing. It would have been further obvious to treat the animal hides with sodium metabisulfite solutions as Biyu teaches sodium metabisulfite is applied as an effective swelling agent to remove hair and loosen the animal skin. Using the sodium metabisulfite separately from the chemical solution and salt additive or simultaneously would be obvious as the same chemicals would be applied and the same purpose achieved which is swelling of the animal hide and hair removal. 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).
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