DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This office action is in response to applicant’s claims filed October 21, 2024.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1,2,4-7,15 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leather Facts in view of Scheen (US 4,999,024).
Leather Facts teaches treating cowhides by harvesting the hides and drying to kill or inactivate bacteria (no salt curing with sodium chloride), soaking (washing), fleshing, unhairing, liming, deliming, bating, pickling with acids such as sulfuric acid and salts and that after pickling the hides can be kept in this state for an extended period of time without fear of deterioration (page 14). Extended periods of time would lastly dry the hide as the water moisture would evaporate. This indicates that the process stops and an intermediate product is complete until the preserved hide is sent to a tannery for tanning, as is in applicant's claim which cites a product which will later be amenable to easy tanning.
Leather Facts does not teach fatliquoring prior to tanning.
Scheen teaches treating untanned skins by splitting, fleshing, unhairing, drying, and washing followed by fatliquoring with oil and greasing agents (fatliquoring agents) prior to bating (column 3, lines 39-68 ). Scheen teaches the hides oiling solution is water based therefore aqueous (column 3, lines 65-68). Scheen teaches the hides can be cured by drying and do not require salting indicated by the use of the conjugation “or” (column 3, line 44). Scheen teaches this is a deliming and curing process to promote a silky texture of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform fatliquoring prior to tanning in the methods of Leather Facts as Scheen teach greasing hides with oils is conventional on untanned hides and the greases penetrate to add softness into the hide and this performed prior to bating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods to the instantly claimed order because the prior art teach all the claimed method steps as effective in treating untanned hides for the benefit of providing soft, plump hides which can be stored for long periods of time without fear of deterioration.
Changing the order of steps does not render a claimed process non-obvious over the prior art, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440,441,442 (POBA 1959). In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959).
It would be obvious that hides treated with similar preliminary to preserve them for long periods of time without fear of deterioration would possess the same lack of spoilage under varying humidity and also be easily rehydratable for tanning with chromium sulfate, vegetable tannin or synthetic tanning agent as the properties of the treatments in their interaction with the pelts would obviously produce similar results. Leather Facts recognizes that conventional techniques produce a long term stable pelt with no deterioration.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leather Facts in view of Scheen (US 4,999,024) and further in view of Brehn (US 5,391,784).
Leather Facts and Scheen are relied upon as described above.
Leather Facts and Scheen are silent as to the anionic fatliquoring agents.
Brehn et al. teaches that when hides are treated fatliquoring agents it is conventional to use both anionic and cationic fatliquors (column 2, lines 50-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an anionic fatliquor in the methods of Leather Facts, and Scheen because Leather Facts invites the inclusion of fatliquoring the untanned hide and Brehn teaches anionic fatliquoring compounds are conventional agents in effectively fatliquoring hides. Selecting anionic fatliquors would be obvious as Brehn teaches the fatliquor determines the softness, tear strength, tear resistance, elongation and fullness properties.
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leather Facts in view of Scheen (US 4,999,024) and Brehn (US 5,391,784) and further in view of Saravanabhavan (WO 2005/071118).
Leather Facts, Scheen and Brehn are relied upon as described above.
Leather Facts, Scheen and Brehn are silent as to the weight of the fatliquoring agents.
Saravanabhavan teaches treating delimed and/or bated pelts with fatliquors at a concentration 0f 2-6% and a pH or 5-8.5 at 20-55°C (page 4, line 32- to page 5, line 1). The tanning agent and dye are optional. The weights of fatliquor are based on the weight of the fleshed pelt (page 5, lines 23-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use 2-6% by weight of the pelt of anionic fatliquor in the methods of Leather Facts, Scheen and Brehn because Leather Facts invites the inclusion of fatliquoring the untanned hide and Saravanabhavan teaches it is more eco-friendly and less waste producing to fatliquor prior to tanning at the claimed weight ranges. Optimizing to the claimed fatliquor weight would be obvious as Brehn teaches the amount of fatliquor determines the softness, tear strength, tear resistance, elongation and fullness properties of the hide and Saravanabhavan teaches using 2-6% fatliquor based on the weight of the pelt.
Claims 1,3,10,15 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leather Facts in view of Scheen (US 4,999,024) and Pensel (US 2,226,579).
Leather Facts and Scheen are relied upon as described above.
Leather Facts and Scheen are silent as to the second pickling.
Pensel teaches it is conventional in leather production to treat hides and skins with a first pickling step followed by a second repickling prior to tanning (claim 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Leather Facts and Scheen by pickling after bating, fatliquoring, repickling and then drying as Pensel teaches two distinct pickling steps are used in preparing hides and pelts for leather tanning to produce a product with improved quality. Employing a second pickling step in the methods of Leather Facts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made as the repetition of steps would provide a sufficiently pickled hide, using first portion of the pickle and the remainder in a second portion to provide a complete pickling.
Regarding the order of the steps, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods to the instantly claimed order because the prior art teach all the claimed method steps as effective in treating untanned hides for the benefit of providing soft, plump hides which can be stored for long periods of time without fear of deterioration.
Changing the order of steps does not render a claimed process non-obvious over the prior art, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440,441,442 (POBA 1959). In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959).
It would be obvious that hides treated with similar preliminary to preserve them for long periods of time without fear of deterioration would possess the same lack of spoilage under varying humidity and also be easily rehydratable for tanning with chromium sulfate, vegetable tannin or synthetic tanning agent as the properties of the treatments in their interaction with the pelts would obviously produce similar results. Leather Facts recognizes that conventional techniques produce a long term stable pelt with no deterioration.
Claim 11 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leather Facts in view of Scheen (US 4,999,024) and Pensel (US 2,226,579) and further in view of Brehn (US 5,391,784).
Leather Facts Scheen and Pensel are relied upon as described above.
Leather Facts, Scheen and Pensel are silent as to the cationic fatliquoring agents.
Brehn et al. teaches that when hides are treated fatliquoring agents it is conventional to use both anionic and cationic fatliquors (column 2, lines 50-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an anionic fatliquor in the methods of Leather Facts, Scheen and Pensel because Leather Facts invites the inclusion of fatliquoring the untanned hide and Brehn teaches anionic fatliquoring compounds are conventional agents in effectively fatliquoring hides. Selecting anionic fatliquors would be obvious as Brehn teaches the fatliquor determines the softness, tear strength, tear resistance, elongation and fullness properties.
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leather Facts in view of Scheen (US 4,999,024), Pensel (US 2,226,579) and Brehn (US 5,391,784) and further in view of Saravanabhavan (WO 2005/071118).
Leather Facts, Scheen, Pensel and Brehn are relied upon as described above.
Leather Facts, Scheen, Pensel and Brehn are silent as to the weight of the fatliquoring agents.
Saravanabhavan teaches treating delimed and/or bated pelts with fatliquors at a concentration 0f 2-6% and a pH or 5-8.5 at 20-55°C (page 4, line 32- to page 5, line 1). The tanning agent and dye are optional.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use 2-6% by weight of the pelt of anionic fatliquor in the methods of Leather Facts, Scheen, Pensel and Brehn because Leather Facts invites the inclusion of fatliquoring the untanned hide and Saravanabhavan teaches it is more eco-friendly and less waste producing to fatliquor prior to tanning at the claimed weight ranges. Optimizing to the claimed fatliquor weight would be obvious as Brehn teaches the amount of fatliquor determines the softness, tear strength, tear resistance, elongation and fullness properties of the hide and Saravanabhavan teaches using 2-6% fatliquor based on the weight of the pelt.
Claims 1,2,4-7 and 13-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leather Facts in view of Scheen (US 4,999,024) and Connor (US 2,004,930).
Leather Facts and Scheen are relied upon as set forth above
Leather Facts and Scheen does not specify lastly drying and sammying.
Conner teaches that untanned hides are conventionally dehydrated (page 1, left column, lines 1-5) drying by using sammying techniques which comprise using rollers to press the liquid out of the hides (page 3,, left column) until at least 80% of the water is removed, which leaves 20% or less moisture content or an appropriate amount for the hides to remain soft and plump without distortion or shrinkage (page 2, left column, lines 20-35; page 4, lines 40-70, claim 1). Conner teaches air drying after 80% of the moisture is removed (page 4, left column, lines 63-72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform drying by sammying and air drying as Conner teaches untanned hides and conventionally dehydrated and effective methods for removing moisture are sammying and air drying to produce a hide which is soft and plump without distortion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods to the instantly claimed order because the prior art teach all the claimed method steps as effective in treating untanned hides for the benefit of providing soft, plump hides which can be stored for long periods of time without fear of deterioration.
It would be obvious that hides treated with similar preliminary to preserve them for long periods of time without fear of deterioration would possess the same lack of spoilage under varying humidity and also be easily rehydratable for tanning with chromium sulfate, vegetable tannin or synthetic tanning agent as the properties of the treatments in their interaction with the pelts would obviously produce similar results. Leather Facts recognizes that conventional techniques produce a long term stable pelt with no deterioration.
. Changing the order of steps does not render a claimed process non-obvious over the prior art, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440,441,442 (POBA 1959). In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959).
Regarding claim 14, if written in independent form claim 14 would still have solvent drying as an optional component and therefore the teachings are not required.
Claim 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leather Facts in view of Scheen (US 4,999,024) and Connor (US 2,004,930) and further in view of Brehn (US 5,391,784).
Leather Facts, Scheen and Conner are relied upon as described above.
Leather Facts, Scheen and Conner are silent as to the anionic fatliquoring agents.
Brehn et al. teaches that when hides are treated fatliquoring agents it is conventional to use both anionic and cationic fatliquors (column 2, lines 50-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use an anionic fatliquor in the methods of Leather Facts, Scheen and Conner because Leather Facts invites the inclusion of fatliquoring the untanned hide and Brehn teaches anionic fatliquoring compounds are conventional agents in effectively fatliquoring hides. Selecting anionic fatliquors would be obvious as Brehn teaches the fatliquor determines the softness, tear strength, tear resistance, elongation and fullness properties.
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Leather Facts in view of Scheen (US 4,999,024), Connor (US 2,004,930) and Brehn (US 5,391,784) and further in view of Saravanabhavan (WO 2005/071118).
Leather Facts, Scheen, Conner and Brehn are relied upon as described above.
Leather Facts, Scheen, Conner and Brehn are silent as to the weight of the fatliquoring agents.
Saravanabhavan teaches treating delimed and/or bated pelts with fatliquors at a concentration 0f 2-6% and a pH or 5-8.5 at 20-55°C (page 4, line 32- to page 5, line 1). The tanning agent and dye are optional. The weights of fatliquor are based on the weight of the fleshed pelt (page 5, lines 23-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use 2-6% by weight of the pelt of anionic fatliquor in the methods of Leather Facts, Scheen, Conner and Brehn because Leather Facts invites the inclusion of fatliquoring the untanned hide and Saravanabhavan teaches it is more eco-friendly and less waste producing to fatliquor prior to tanning at the claimed weight ranges. Optimizing to the claimed fatliquor weight would be obvious as Brehn teaches the amount of fatliquor determines the softness, tear strength, tear resistance, elongation and fullness properties of the hide and Saravanabhavan teaches using 2-6% fatliquor based on the weight of the pelt.
Claims 1,2 and 15 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ushakoff (US 2,868,614).
Ushakoff teaches treating untanned skins with fatliquoring agents at 3% on weight of the skin and solvent drying (column 6, lines 1-50; column 5, lines 15-30). Ushakoff further teaches that the skins may be cowhides and may be bated and pickled followed by fatliquoring (column 3, line 70 to column 5, line 15). While the bating and pickling is followed by tanning and fatliquoring, the teaching that fatliquored skins can be untanned provides and embodiment for bating, pickling, fatliquoring and solvent drying untanned hides. Ushakoff teaches treating cowhides
Ushakoff does not teach the claimed order of steps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the claimed methods to the instantly claimed order because Ushakoff teach all the claimed method steps as effective in treating untanned hides for the benefit of providing an economical and rapid way of producing hides with greater tear resistance and tensile strength.
Changing the order of steps does not render a claimed process non-obvious over the prior art, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440,441,442 (POBA 1959). In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to not patentably distinguish the processes, see Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 159 (PO BdPatApp 1959).
Claim 13 is rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ushakoff (US 2,868,614) and Connor (US 2,004,930).
Ushakoff is upon as set forth above.
Ushakoff are silent as to sammying.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to perform drying by sammying in the methods of Ushakoff as Conner teaches untanned hides and conventionally dehydrated and effective methods for removing moisture are sammying and air drying to produce a hide which is soft and plump without distortion.
Claim 14 is rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ushakoff (US 2,868,614) and Connor (US 2,004,930) and further in view of Bowker (US 7,578,970), Robinson (US 4,434,196) and Derwent abstract 1996-115110.
Ushakoff and Conner are relied upon as set forth above.
Ushakoff and Conner do no teach the orange terpene, hydrocarbons, fatty alcohol ethoxylate, glycol ether, n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone.
Bowker teaches disinfecting leather by treating with orange terpene oil (abstract).
Robinson evidence solvent drying as an effective means of drying wet substrates such as leathers can be accelerated using hydrocarbons, fatty alcohol ethoxylates and glycol ethers (column 1, lines 1-10; column 2, lines 28-65).
The Derwent abstract evidence degreasing animal hides by using N-methyl-2- pyrrolidone.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the methods of Ushakoff and Conner by incorporating the steps of treatment with n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, orange terpene, hydrocarbons, fatty alcohol ethoxylates and glycol ethers because Bowker evidence the disinfecting benefits of orange terpene, the Derwent abstract evidences the disinfecting benefits of N-methyl-2- pyrrolidone and Robinson evidences the accelerated drying by fatty alcohol ethoxylates, hydrocarbons and glycol ethers provided to treated leathers. Combining disinfecting and drying solvents together to treat the hide for effective hide preservation and further leather tanning would be obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights