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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendments filed 02/21/2025 to the claims and specifications have been reviewed and accepted by the examiner.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo (US-20210101946) in view of Oana (US-20210387383).
Regarding claim 1, Lo teaches:
A method for producing a fibroin molded body ([0016] – [0021] and [0345]), the fibroin molding body manufacturing method comprising the steps of:
loading fibroin into a mold ([0142] and [0148] – [0149], [0344] – [0345], and [0339]);
heating ([0007], [0061], [0076], [0156], and [0158]) the fibroin;
heat-treating the fibroin molded body ([0021] and [0153] – [0159]).
Lo does not explicitly teach:
pressurizing the fibroin; and
taking out the pressurized fibroin, wherein the pressurized fibroin forms a fibroin-molded body.
However, Oana, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for producing a fibroin molded body, teaches:
pressurizing the fibroin ([0038], [0043], and [0061] – [0062]); and
taking out the pressurized fibroin, wherein the pressurized fibroin forms a fibroin-molded body ([0038] and [0061] – [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Lo to incorporate the teachings of Oana and explicitly include a step of pressurizing the fibroin. The purpose, as stated by Oana, being since the pressure application and the heating can be simultaneously performed, and the manufacturing process can be simplified ([0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Lo in view of Oana teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Oana further teaches:
wherein the heating and pressurizing is performed at 70 to 200°C and 10 MPa or more ([0038] and [0061]).
Lo further teaches:
wherein the heating (and pressurizing, as described by the combination above) is performed for 1 - 300 seconds ([0067]).
Regarding claim 3, Lo in view of Oana teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 3 depends on. Lo further teaches:
wherein taking out the molded body takes place within 500 seconds after the start of heating. Oana teaches removing after predetermined time (Oana; [0061] – [0062]), as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Lo teaches that the predetermined time is under 500 seconds (Lo; [0067]).
Regarding claim 7, Lo in view of Oana teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends on. Oana further teaches:
additionally comprising the step of drying an aqueous solution containing fibroin inside a block for manufacturing the fibroin (Col. 3).
Claims 4-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo (US-20210101946) in view of Oana (US-20210387383), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sekiyama (U.S. Patent No. 10329332).
Regarding claim 4, Lo in view of Oana teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends on, but does not explicitly teach the temperature of the heat treatment. However, Sekiyama, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for producing a fibroin molded body, teaches:
wherein heat-treating is performed at a temperature of 70°C to 200°C (Col. 9, lines 13-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heat treatment of Lo in view of Oana to incorporate the teachings of Sekiyama and explicitly include a temperature for the heat-treatment. The purpose, as stated by Sekiyama, being that the material is heat-treated for 1 hour at 80° C (Col. 9, lines 26-27).
Regarding claim 5, Lo in view of Oana teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on, but does not explicitly teach the time of the heat treatment. However, Sekiyama, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for producing a fibroin molded body, teaches:
wherein the heating time for heat-treating is 600 seconds or longer (Col. 9, lines 13-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heat treatment of Lo in view of Oana to incorporate the teachings of Sekiyama and explicitly include a time for the heat-treatment. The purpose, as stated by Sekiyama, being that the material is heat-treated for 1 hour at 80° C (Col. 9, lines 26-27).
Regarding claim 6, Lo in view of Oana teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on, but does not explicitly teach the relative time of the heat treatment compared to the time of the heating. However, Sekiyama, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for producing a fibroin molded body, in view of Lo and Oana, teaches:
wherein the heating time for heat-treating is longer than the heating time for heating and pressurizing. As shown in claim 5, Sekiyama teaches heat-treatment lasting 1 hour (Sekiyama; Col. 9, lines 13-30), and Lo with modification by Oana teaches, as shown in claim 2 above, heating and pressurizing for under five minutes (Lo; [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Lo in view of Oana to incorporate the teachings of Sekiyama and explicitly include a relative time for the heat-treatment compared to the heating. The purpose, as stated by Sekiyama, being that the material is heat-treated for 1 hour at 80° C (Col. 9, lines 26-27).
Regarding claim 8, Lo in view of Oana teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 8 depends on, but does not teach a drying step. However, Sekiyama, in a similar field of endeavor, a method for producing a fibroin molded body, teaches:
additionally comprising the step of drying an aqueous solution containing fibroin inside a block for manufacturing the fibroin (Col. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Lo in view of Oana to incorporate the teachings of Sekiyama and include a drying step. The purpose, as stated by Sekiyama, being that the immersion for desolvation of cast film may be performed in water (Col. 3, lines 45-47).
Regarding claim 9, Lo in view of Oana and Sekiyama teaches the limitations of claim 8, which claim 9 depends on. Oana further teaches:
further comprising the step of pressurizing the dried aqueous solution containing fibroin inside the block for manufacturing the fibroin ([0038], [0043], and [0061] – [0062]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
