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 without traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 8/7/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/7/26.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuan (The Preparation of High Performance Silk Fiber/Fibroin Composite).
As to claim 1, Yuan teaches a casted body (casting is a form of molding) [Abstract] comprising: an all fibroin composite ie 100 parts by weight fibroin, wherein the fibroin comprises fibrous fibroin phrased as fibers and non-fibrous fibroin phrased as fibroin matrix [Abstract].
As to claim 2, Yuan non-fibrous fibroin is mixed with the fibrous fibroin for molding the molded body during the casting process [2.1 Preparation of Silk fiber/fibroin composites]. Furthermore, this a manner of preparing the molded body, not a structural feature of the molded body itself. Hence, the molded body of Yuan would have the same structural features as that claimed by the instant invention.
As to claim 3, Yuan teaches the fibrous fibroin clings with the non-fibrous fibroin during the mixing as they are mentioned as adhering together [Discussion, last paragraph on 4846, first paragraph 4844]. ]. Furthermore, this a manner of preparing the molded body, not a structural feature of the molded body itself. Hence, the molded body of Yuan would have the same structural features as that claimed by the instant invention.
As to claim 6, Yuan teaches the molded body comprises 25 parts by weight of the fibrous fibroin [Abstract].
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yuan (The Preparation of High Performance Silk Fiber/Fibroin Composite) and evidenced by Badillo-Sanchez (Characterization of the Secondary Structure of Degummed Bombyx mori silk in Modern and Historical Samples).
As to claim 4, Yuan teaches the fibrous fibroin is bombyx mori silk which would be 1 µm or more and 200 µm or less.
Badillo-Sanchez, utilized purely as evidentiary reference, notes that bombyx mori silk has an average diameter 10-14 um [Introduction].
The examiner further notes that silk fibroin typically has a 2.5-30 micrometer diameter, applicant’s range would comprise virtually every silk fiber in existence.
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.
Claim(s) 7-9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (The Preparation of High Performance Silk Fiber/Fibroin Composite) in view of Lo (US 2021/0101946).
As to claims 7-9, 11, Yuan does not explicitly state the molecular weight of the fibrous fibroin is 130 kDa or more, the molded body further comprising sericin, wherein a content of the sericin in the molded body is 0.1 parts by weight or more and 10 parts by weight or less, the fibrous fibroin includes fibrous fibroin in sheet form, wherein a crystallization ratio of the fibroin is 50% or more.
Yuan teaches silk based materials for use in biomedical and construction applications [Abstract] wherein a molecular weight of the fibrous fibroin is 130 kDa or more [0008, 0016, 0062, 0063, 0070], the molded body comprising sericin, wherein a content of the sericin in the molded body is 0.1 parts by weight or more and 10 parts by weight or less [0008, 0070], the fibrous fibroin in sheet form [0009-0012, 0166], wherein a crystallization ratio of the fibroin is 50% or more [0161, 0166] as this composition allowed for silk based materials with enhanced mechanical properties [0006]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Yuan and made the silk compositions with these features, as suggested Lo, as this allowed for silk based materials with enhanced mechanical properties.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (The Preparation of High Performance Silk Fiber/Fibroin Composite) in view of Mazumder (Mechanical Properties of Silk and Glass Fiber Reinforced Hybrid Polypropylene Composites).
As to claims 5 and 10, Yuan does not explicitly state at least one component selected from a group including carbon fiber and glass fiber or that the fiber length of the fibroin is between .1 mm and 50 mm.
Mazumder teaches fiber reinforced plastics wherein silk is utilized in combination with glass fiber both at a length of 3 mm [2.2 Preparation of composites] and notes that at “1:1 ratio of silk and glass exhibited the best set of mechanical properties” [Introduction, Conclusions]. As silk and glass fibers had comparable properties as reinforcing materials they were art recognized equivalents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Yuan and utilized both silk fiber and glass fibers both chopped to 3 mm, as suggested by Mazumder, as equal parts glass and silk at this fiber length resulted in the best mechanical properties. Furthermore, utilizing 2 art recognized equivalents in combination is generally thought to be obvious, se MPEP 2144.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (The Preparation of High Performance Silk Fiber/Fibroin Composite) in view of Shubhra (Mechanical and Degradation Characteristics of Natural Silk Fiber reinforced Gelatin Composites).
As to claims 12 and 13, an impact strength of the molded body is 5 kJ/m2 or more and a maximum bending stress of the molded body is 50 MPa or more and a maximum bending stress of the molded body after dipping in 0.02 M aqueous sodium carbonate solution at 60 degrees Celsius for 60 minutes is 50 MPa or more.
Shubhra teaches a silk reinforced composites produced via compression molding [Abstract, Conclusion] wherein the impact strength of the molded body is 5 kJ/m2 [Abstract, Table 1] and 3.7 GPa [Abstract, Table 1] as these exhibit “excellent mechanical properties… good chemical resistance” and these silk reinforced materials would demonstrate “high strength, extensibility, compressibility” [Introduction]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Yuan and made the molded body have the listed properties, as suggested by Shubhra, as these exhibit “excellent mechanical properties… good chemical resistance” and these silk reinforced materials would demonstrate “high strength, extensibility, compressibility.”
As the combination of Yuan and Shubhra would teach the same starting mechanical properties with the same materials, the molded body would demonstrate a maximum bending stress of the molded body subsequent to dipping in 0.02 M aqueous sodium carbonate solution at 60 degrees Celsius for 60 minutes is 50 MPa or more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights