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 .
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 40 and 42-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005/089292 A2 in view of WO 2020/255165 A1. WO 2005/089292 A2 discloses a composition comprising keratin obtained from avian feathers and at least one OH plasticizer. (See the Abstract and the first two paragraphs on page 3.) The difference between the composition disclosed by WO 2005/089292 A2, and that recited in claims, is that WO 2005/089292 A2 does not disclose that the composition includes citric acid as a cross-linking agent. WO 2020/255165 A1 discloses a biopolymer formed by polymerizing a blend of keratin protein with one or more plasticizers, (see page 4, lines 8-22), and teaches on page 11, lines 14-17 that citric acid can be included as a cross-linking agent. It would have been obvious from WO 2020/255165 A1 to include citric acid as a cross-linking agent in the composition of WO 2005/089292 A2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since the compositions of WO 2005/089292 A2 and WO 2020/255165 A1 are analogous in that both include blends of keratin or a protein derived from keratin and a plasticizer, and WO 2005/089292 A2 teaches in the first full paragraph on page 5 that fiber portion of the feather as well as the quill consists primarily of the protein keratin.
Regarding claim 42, the citric acid of WO 2020/255165 A1 would link the polymers of either WO 2005/089292 A2 or WO 2020/155165 A1 to no less extent than in the composition recited in claim 42.
Regarding claims 43 and 46, it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in art to determine suitable ratios of the citric acid to keratin, or keratin to biopolymer, especially since the recited ranges are particularly broad.
Regarding claims 44 and 45, WO 2005/089292 A2 and WO2020/255165 A1 both disclose glycerol as a plasticizer. (See the paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6 of WO 2005/089292 A2, and page 9, lines 8-15 of WO 2020/255165 A1.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2005/089292 A2 in view of WO 2020/255165 A1, as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Lundgren (US 2,459,708). It would have been further obvious from Lundgren to substitute wool for the feathers in the composition of WO 2005/089292 A2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Lundgren establishes the equivalence between wool and feathers as a source of keratin at column 2, lines 32-34.
Gupta et al ‘601 (US 2022/0267601) is made of record for constituting the equivalent to WO 2020/255165 A1.
Yamada et al (US 5,276,138) is made of record for disclosing a method for solubilizing animal hair.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights