1.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) 1-17 and 27-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PCT Publication WO 2020/056467 in view of Reed et al 2020/0061240 essentially for reasons of record noting the following.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite feeding the liquid resin and the liquid reactive crosslinking agent from first and second feeding tanks to a mixer, the mixer being in fluid communication with a spinneret, feeding the resultant core composition from the mixer to the spinneret and contacting the reactive core composition with a sheath polymer in an aqueous solvent. Reed et al (see paragraphs 0146-0148) discloses forming PGSU through reaction injection molding using first and second feeding tanks for the PGS and isocyanate along with static or dynamic mixing (paragraph 0146) of the components wherein the mixing occurs until a suitable viscosity is achieved (paragraph 0147) upon which the reactive mixture is extruded into a mold. It is nothing but conventional in the art—Official Notice is hereby taken of this—to employ feeding tanks and mixers and spinnerets in wet spinning and such would have been an obvious method to prepare and extrude a reactive core mixture to be wet spun. Again, Reed et al does teach the formation of core-sheath rods at paragraph 0153 and the wet spinning of fibers at paragraph 0155. PCT -467 discloses wet spinning (see paragraph 0015) a core-sheath fiber (paragraph 0014) using PGS as the core (see paragraph 0017) and alginate as the sheath (see paragraph 0018), with each of the polymers being in solution (paragraph 0046-0047) and being extruded into a coagulation bath. The wet spinning is taught at paragraphs 0201-0204, including the formation of an alginate solution in water—ie, aqueous—of a suitable concentration (paragraph 0202) as set forth in instant claim 17 wherein the solution is extruded into a coagulant bath containing 2% calcium chloride (see paragraph 0204). While PCT -467 provides details of a bench operation using the alginate as the core material, it is clear that the instant reagents and concentrations thereof are taught in PCT -467. Ie, since the primary reference already teaches that alginate would be used as a sheath component, it is immaterial that the disclosure at paragraphs 0201-0204 use alginate as a core. Obviously, one of ordinary skill in this art would have used alginate and coagulant compositions that would be similar in the wet spinning of a PGS core and an alginate sheath. It is maintained that one of ordinary skill in this art would have been led to employ the reactive PGS/isocyanate composition of Reed et al in place of the PGS core material in the primary reference to obtain a strengthened core as desired. As already noted, the removal of the carrier/sheath polymer from the final fiber as set forth in instant claim 3 would have been an obvious step should the sheath not be required in the final product. The dynamic and static mixers of instant claims 27, 28, 31 and 32 has already been addressed. The control of the viscosities of the components as set forth in claims 29 and 32 is submitted to be an obvious aspect to facilitate the spinning. Reed et al goes into substantial detail concerning the viscosity of the reactive component—see paragraphs 0147-0148—and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that viscosity control is just as important in a spinning operation as it is in reaction injection molding. Clearly, the viscosity of the sheath component would have to be within a range that would allow extruding the fiber through the spinneret or otherwise no useful product would result. It is submitted that this aspect would have been well within the skill level of the art based on routine experimentation. The use of tanks/mixers for the components has already been addressed and employing a tank for the alginate solution and combining in the mixer as set forth in instant claim 30 is submitted as being obvious to provide the mixture that will be spun.
2.Applicant's arguments filed October 22, 2015 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is submitted that applicant is arguing the references separately when the rejection is based on the combination. While PCT -467 lacks the teaching of a reactive core, the instant reactive core is submitted to be taught in Reed et al. Reed et al certainly teaches forming an extrudate of the instant reactive core material (PGS/isocyanate to form PGSU) through reaction injection molding as well as general disclosures to forming core-sheath fibers via wet spinning. PCT -467 discloses wet spinning of PGS and alginate to form a core-sheath fiber. It is submitted that one of ordinary skill in this art would have been led to the combination upon desiring a core material with increased strength dues to the crosslinking. If indeed the presence of water would be expected to interfere with the processing as applicant argues at the bottom of page 9 of the amendment, then surely the instant aqueous alginate solution would also pose a problem during the reaction. Concerning the viscosities, it is clear that a material to be spun must have a suitable viscosity for being extruded through the spinneret. If too viscous, it will not flow easily and clog the orifices. If not viscous enough, it will not form properly and result in a useless extrudate. It is submitted that one of ordinary skill in this art would realize that viscosity control for a wet spinning solution—or solutions—would be a priority if a useful product is to be obtained and that such would be determined through routine experimentation. The limitations of instant claim 17 said by applicant to not be addressed have been addressed. While applicant believes that impermissible hindsight has been used in forming the rejection, such is respectfully submitted to not be so. Indeed, it would appear that the references almost suggest the combination when the disclosures thereof are taken as a whole.
3.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHIEU D VARGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1211. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9 to 6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina A Johnson, can be reached at telephone number 571 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MATHIEU D VARGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742