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 with traverse of claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 8/20/206 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because claim 21 is an apparatus claim and the material worked upon does not add patentable weight to the structure of the apparatus, thus there are different search strategies required. Additionally, the apparatus requires the vinyl and/or anti-plasticizing agent in the solution bath, while the method requires that in the keratin solution. These are two entirely different inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
"By solid weight" in the claims is being interpreted per paragraph 0012 of the specification: "by solid weight (e.g., not including the weight of any solvents).
"High tenacity" in the claims is being interpreted per paragraph 0032 of the specification as being a minimum of about 15 cN/tex.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 16 does not further limit parent claim 15. Claim 15 states there is an air gap between the keratin solution and the solution bath. Claim 16 states extruding the keratin solution through the air gap into the solution bath. The processing of claim 16 is already found in claims 1 and 15, since claim 1 says extruding a keratin solution into a solution bath, and claim 15 says there is an air gap therebetween. Therefore claim 16 does not stating anything that wasn't already stated in the parent claims.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al (US PGPub 2023/0071444; herein Yang). Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches:
Extruding a keratin solution into a solution bath (Figure 1 and paragraph 0102), the keratin solution comprising at least 65% keratin by solid weight (paragraph 0101, 27% keratin and 10% SDS are dissolved in a solvent, thus there is 73% keratin and 27% SDS by solid weight), thereby forming one or more keratin fibers (Figure 1 and throughout disclosure)
Drawing the one or more keratin fibers through the solution bath, to produce one or more drawn keratin fibers (As seen in Figure 1 the extruded fiber is drawn through the bath by the action of the roller in the bath and the rollers outside the bath)
Moving the one or more drawn keratin fibers through one or more heated environments, to produce one or more high-tenacity keratin fibers (Figure 1 and paragraph 0102, the additional baths are heated)
Regarding claim 4, Yang teaches:
Wherein the keratin solution is derived from one or more alpha-keratin sources and/or one or more beta-keratin sources (chicken feathers are used, which is a source of both alpha and beta keratin, paragraphs 0118-0120)
Regarding claim 5, Yang teaches:
Wherein the keratin solution comprises keratin having a molecular weight between about 5 kiloDaltons (kDa) and about 200 kDa (paragraph 0105)
Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches:
Wherein the one or more high-tenacity keratin fibers (i) have a thickness of between about 10 µm and about 40 µm (paragraph 0008), (ii) have a tenacity between about 15 cN/tex to about 60 cN/tex (paragraph 0092, converting to g/den, the claimed range is 1.7-6.8 g/den), and (iii) are biocompatible (the fibers of Yang are as claimed, thus seen as biocompatible, since nothing else has been claimed to differentiate the biocompatibility of the fiber from the fiber of claim 1)
Regarding claim 8, Yang teaches:
Wherein the one or more keratin fibers form due to solvent-exchange (the process of Yang would create the fiber via solvent-exchange due to the materials of the spinning dope and the coagulation bath)
Regarding claim 9, Yang teaches:
Wherein the solution bath comprises a coagulation solution (Figure 1, the fiber is extruded into a coagulation bath)
Regarding claim 10, Yang teaches:
Wherein the keratin solution is homogenous before the extruding the keratin solution into the solution bath (Since Yang states that the keratin and SDS are dissolved, the assumption is that the solution is homogenous)
Regarding claim 11, Yang teaches:
Wherein the drawing the one or more keratin fibers through the solution bath is performed at a draw ratio of between 110% and 2000% (paragraph 0089)
Regarding claim 12, Yang teaches:
Wherein the draw ration is between 300% and 2000% (paragraph 0089)
Regarding claim 13, Yang teaches:
Wherein, in the solution bath, the keratin solution coagulates and crosslinks within itself, to produce the one or more keratin fibers (paragraph 0109)
Regarding claim 14, Yang teaches:
Wherein the one or more heated environments have a temperature of between about 20° Celsius and about 170° Celsius (paragraphs 0083 and 0102)
Regarding claim 17, Yang teaches:
Wherein the one or more heated environments comprise one or more sources of heated air (paragraph 0102, the fibers go into an oven)
Regarding claim 18, Yang teaches:
Wherein the one or more heated environments comprise an enclosed space through which the one or more drawn keratin fibers are moved (paragraph 0102, the fibers go into an oven)
Regarding claim 20, Yang teaches:
Wherein a pH of the solution bath is not adjusted before the drawing the one or more keratin fibers (there is no mention of adjusting the pH of the coagulation bath, thus no pH adjustments are made. There is also the interpretation that one can make a single pH adjustment, and not alter that new pH and it would still fall under the reading of the claim)
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.
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Kang et al (KR 100734057; herein Kang, with machine translation). Regarding claims 2 and 3:
Yang is silent to the addition of a vinyl and/or anti-plasticizing agents, where the agents can be iodine, lignin, glucarate, or combinations thereof.
In the same field of spinning keratin fibers, Kang teaches adding iodine to the spinning dope (Example 2, page 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the iodine of Kang, in the process of Yang, since the iodine helps to protect the molecular stability of the keratin.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Anker et al (US 3684522; herein Anker). Regarding claim 7:
Yang is silent to adding an alcohol to the solution bath.
In the same field of spinning keratin fibers, Anker teaches using ethanol in such a bath, so as to increase the flexibility of the fiber (column 6, lines 68-74).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the ethanol of Anker in the bath of Yang, since it will increase the flexibility of the fiber.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, in view of Abe et al (US PGPub 2021/0095399; herein Abe) and Bengtsson (Air-gap spinning of lignin-cellulose fibers). Regarding claims 15 and 16:
Yang is silent to spinning with an air gap.
In the same field of endeavor Abe teaches spinning a keratin fiber with an air gap (paragraphs 0012 and 0270-0274). Abe teaches one can use wet or dry-wet spinning to produce the fibers. Additionally, Bengtsson teaches that spinning with an air gap allows for the alignment of the polymer prior to fiber fixation (page 3, second paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to spin the fibers of Yang with an air gap since the prior art has shown that wet and dry-wet spinning are equivalents for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06 II), and that the use of an air gap allows for chain alignment of the polymer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
