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 .
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constantine et al. (US Pat. 3,071,821).
Regarding claim 1, Constantine et al. teach leather fibers having different lengths wherein the leather fibers have a desired average length. Constantine specifically teaches the average fiber length and amounts of each length of fiber groups as a results effective variable, teaching not only how to vary the average fiber length and the amounts of each of the group of fiber lengths, but also gives motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the average fiber length and the amounts of each group of fiber lengths in order to affect the web properties including, but not limited to strength, elasticity and cohesiveness of the web [1:39-55; 6:55-57 and 8:67-9:3]. It therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to therefore arrive at the claimed average fiber length and the claimed amounts of each group of fiber lengths through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired web properties.
Constantine et al. are silent regarding the claimed fiber thickness. However, given Constantine et al. teach various fiber deniers and the claimed broad range of fiber thicknesses of which are commonly used in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed thickness in order to affect the fabric properties, including strength, flexibility, thickness of the fabric, and other mechanical properties and arrive at the claimed invention.
Applicant has now amended the claim to recite the leather fibers include fibers having a length of 70mm or more. Applicant admits Constantine teaches fiber lengths up to approximately 2.5 inches (about 63.5 mm) and admits that these fibers are typically no more than 63.5mm. With the percentages of fiber length in claim 1, and no percentage of fibers with length over 70mm claimed, there could be as little as one singular fiber with length over 70mm included. Constantine teaches the fiber length is up to approximately 63.5 mm which would allow for fibers over 70mm and meet the present limitations.
Regarding claim 2-5, Although Constantine et al. does not disclose the claimed process, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113. Therefore, absent evidence of criticality regarding the presently claimed process and given that Constantine et al. meets the requirements of the claimed fibers, Constantine et al. clearly meet the requirements of present claims fibers.
Regarding claim 6, the leather fibers have at least one crimp as crimped and uncrimped fibers are taught.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sacli (TR 201001642) in view of Schafer et al. (PG Pub. 2020/0094443).
Regarding claim 8, Sacli teaches a method for manufacturing fibers having different lengths with the method comprising the steps of sorting the leather by color, disassociating the binding force in the fabric by injecting the sorted fabrics into a milling machine (shredders) respectively, extracting fibers form the leathers in which the binding force is disassociated [Abstract and pages 1-2].
Sacli is silent regarding the claimed and sorting the extracted fibers by length using a perforated net (screen). However, Schafer et al. teach and sorting the extracted fibers by length using a perforated net (screen) in order to achieve advantageous grouping of fibers by length. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the sorting by length of Schafer et al. in Sacli et al. in order to achieve advantageous grouping of fibers by length and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the fabric being leather. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any fabric (which includes leathers), including leathers in order to recycle leather fabrics and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed length of time for milling. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mill the fibers for the claimed length of time for fibers having the claimed softness or hardness in order to affect the leather fiber properties to attain the desired hand and mechanical properties.
Art Not Used by Relevant
US Pat. 3,940,532 teaches leather fibers sorts by length.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 1-6 filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Constantine does not teach the fiber thickness or the newly claimed inclusion of fibers over 70mm in length. Applicant admits Constantine teaches fiber lengths up to approximately 2.5 inches (about 63.5 mm) and admits that these fibers are typically no more than 63.5mm. With the percentages of fiber length in claim 1, and no percentage of fibers with length over 70mm claimed, there could be as little as one singular fiber with length over 70mm included. Constantine teaches the fiber length is up to approximately 63.5 mm which would allow for fibers over 70mm and meet the present limitations. Constantine et al. are silent regarding the claimed fiber thickness. However, given Constantine et al. teach various fiber deniers and the claimed broad range of fiber thicknesses of which are commonly used in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed thickness in order to affect the fabric properties, including strength, flexibility, thickness of the fabric, and other mechanical properties and arrive at the claimed invention. Further, Constantine teaches denier of 3 and using for example polyester viscose or cotton fibers and converting 3 denier to mm would yield fiber diameter in the claimed range used the respective densities. Therefore, as set forth previously, the claimed thickness is obvious over Constantine.
Applicant’s arguments concerning claims 8-9 have been fully considered, but are moot as newly cited art has been used to reject claims 8-9.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Conclusion
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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789