DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 60-65 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 46-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPAP 2018/0216260 to Breslauer in view of USPAP 2010/0120115 to Ogle.
Claim 46, Breslauer discloses a fiber comprising a recombinant protein, wherein said fiber is characterized by an average diameter between 1 µm and 1000 µm, and by an average length of at least 1 mm (see entire document including the abstract, [0092], [0108], [0109] and [0190]). Breslauer does not appear to specifically mention the use of a lamin-based protein but Ogle discloses that it is known in the art to use lamin-based protein to produce fibers (see entire document including the abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fibers of Breslauer from any suitable recombinant protein material, such as lamin-based protein, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 47, said fiber is in contact with a hydrophobic coating layer comprising a water immiscible compound ([0024], [0025] and [0160]).
Claim 48, said water immiscible compound is selected from a vegetable oil, a mineral oil, a fatty acid, a fatty acid ester, a lipid, isobutyl-stearate, tallow fatty acid 2-ethylhexyl ester, polyol carboxylic acid ester, a glyceride, coconut oil fatty acid ester of glycerol, alkoxylated glycerol, a silicone oil, dimethyl polysiloxane, and a wax, including any copolymer, any salt, or any combination thereof ([0024], [0025] and [0160]). Breslauer does not appear to mention a specific hydrophobic coating layer thickness but the examiner takes official notice that a 1 µm to 1000 µm diameter fiber finish typically has a thickness of about 1 nm to about 20 µm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the finish with the claimed thickness, because it is conventional.
Claim 49, the fiber is characterized by an average diameter between about 10 µm and about 1000 µm ([0108] and [0109]). Considering that the lamin-based protein fiber taught by the applied prior is substantially identical to the claimed fiber in terms of material, structure, and size, and is made by a substantially identical coagulation alcohol solution spinning method, it would inherently undergo an α-helix to β-sheet transition upon stretching of said fiber to a strain of about 6%. Plus, Breslauer discloses that the mechanical properties may be controlled by varying the spin dope and spinning parameters and amino acid sequence ([0051]- [0059] and [0087]-[0107]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the properties of the fiber, such as claimed, based on the intended use and desired/required fiber properties.
Claim 50, the average diameter of said fiber is between about 10 µm and 180 µm ([0108] and [0109]). Considering that the lamin-based protein fiber taught by the applied prior is substantially identical to the claimed fiber in terms of material, structure, and size, and is made by a substantially identical coagulation alcohol solution spinning method, the α-helix to β-sheet transition inherently comprises at least 20% α-helix to β-sheet transition as determined by RAMAN spectroscopy. Plus, Breslauer discloses that the mechanical properties may be controlled by varying the spin dope and spinning parameters and amino acid sequence ([0051]- [0059] and [0087]-[0107]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the properties of the fiber, such as claimed, based on the intended use and desired/required fiber properties.
Claim 51, considering that the lamin-based protein fiber taught by the applied prior is substantially identical to the claimed fiber in terms of material, structure, and size, and is made by a substantially identical coagulation alcohol solution spinning method, upon stretching of said fiber to a strain of between about 6% and about 50%, the lamin-based protein is inherently characterized by a β-sheet content of between about 30 and about 50%. Plus, Breslauer discloses that the mechanical properties may be controlled by varying the spin dope and spinning parameters and amino acid sequence ([0051]- [0059] and [0087]-[0107]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the properties of the fiber, such as claimed, based on the intended use and desired/required fiber properties.
Claim 52, said lamin-based protein inherently comprises an A-type lamin, a B-type lamin or both. Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select the desired lamin type, such as claimed, based on the intended use and the desired fiber properties.
Claims 53, 54, 56 and 57, Ogle discloses that it is known in the art to construct lamin-based protein fibers with any specific desired amino acid sequence [0168] and Breslauer discloses that the properties (e.g. hydrophilicity, antimicrobial, extensibility, and toughness) of the fiber may be varied by changing the protein sequence ([0051]-[0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fiber with any suitable amino acid sequence, such as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Claim 55, said fiber is characterized by a diameter between about 20 µm and about 80 µm ([0108] and [0109]). Considering that the lamin-based protein fiber taught by the applied prior is substantially identical to the claimed fiber in terms of material, structure, and size, and is made by a substantially identical coagulation alcohol solution spinning method, the fiber inherently possesses at least one of the claimed mechanical properties. Plus, Breslauer discloses that the mechanical properties may be controlled by varying the spin dope and spinning parameters and amino acid sequence ([0051]- [0059] and [0087]-[0107]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the properties of the fiber, such as claimed, based on the intended use and desired/required fiber properties.
Claim 56, said fiber is characterized by average diameter between about 30 and about 60 µm ([0108] and [0109]). Considering that the lamin-based protein fiber taught by the applied prior is substantially identical to the claimed fiber in terms of material, structure, and size, and is made by a substantially identical coagulation alcohol solution spinning method, the fiber inherently possesses at least one of the claimed properties. Plus, Breslauer discloses that the properties may be controlled by varying the spin dope and spinning parameters and amino acid sequence ([0051]- [0059] and [0087]-[0107]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the properties of the fiber, such as claimed, based on the intended use and desired/required fiber properties.
Claim 58, said fiber is a stretched fiber [0097]. Considering that the lamin-based protein fiber taught by the applied prior is substantially identical to the claimed fiber in terms of material, structure, and size, and is made by a substantially identical coagulation alcohol solution spinning method, the fiber inherently possesses the claimed sheet ratio. Plus, Breslauer discloses that the properties may be controlled by varying the spin dope and spinning parameters and amino acid sequence ([0051]- [0059] and [0087]-[0107]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the properties of the fiber, such as claimed, based on the intended use and desired/required fiber properties.
Claim 59, considering that the lamin-based protein fiber taught by the applied prior is substantially identical to the claimed fiber in terms of material, structure, and size, and is made by a substantially identical coagulation alcohol solution spinning method, the fiber inherently possesses the claimed paracrystals. Plus, Breslauer discloses that crystalline and non-crystalline regions can be controlled as desired based on the desired fiber properties ([0064], [0078] and [0079]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the fibers with any desired crystallinity, such as claimed, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Conclusion
The following patent is cited to further show the state of the art with respect to protein fibers: USPAP 2011/0236974 to Ogle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights