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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/15/2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 allowed.
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.
The leather fibers comprise a plurality of fibers forming a lump (tow) and at least a portion of the leather fibers have a crimp and the leather fibers are entangled with each other by the crimp (entanglement occurs by virtue of the crimp and by virtue of the rupturing forces) [3:45-48].
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.
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 05/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Constantine does not teach the crimp and entanglement. Constantine teaches the leather fibers comprise a plurality of fibers forming a lump (tow) and at least a portion of the leather fibers have a crimp and the leather fibers are entangled with each other by the crimp (entanglement occurs by virtue of the crimp and by virtue of the rupturing forces) [3:45-48].
Claims 8-9 are allowed. Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights