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) 1-3, 5-16 and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wintsch et al 2011/0262684 in view of Simpson et al 2004/0037813 (see paragraphs 0010, 0012, 0074 and 0079) and further in view of Ryan 2012/0065161 (see paragraph 1557).
Wintsch et al is applied for reasons of record, the primary reference lacking essentially the use of the two additives as set forth in amended claim 1. Simpson et al—see paragraph 0079—discloses using phosphatidylcholine as a natural surfactant and polyethylene glycol and glycerols as plasticizers for electroprocessed—ie, electrospinning—solutions. See also the above noted paragraphs concerning the processing. Additionally, Ryan (see paragraph 1557) has been applied to teach that the phosphatidylcholine making up the lung surfactant as taught in Simpson et al is in fact the instant L-a-phosphatidylcholine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method of the primary reference by employing the surfactants and plasticizers taught in Simpson et al for the advantages noted at paragraph 0079 of Simpson et al. Concerning newly added claims 20-23, it is submitted that the exact concentrations of the additives would constitute an aspect that would have been readily determined through routine experimentation dependent on the exact shape of the spun solution and its flexibility and strength as taught at paragraph 0079 of Simpson et al. Given that the instant additives are obviously well known in the electrospinning art, one of ordinary skill would have been able to determined suitable concentrations for each additive.
2.Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-16 and 18-23 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. It is submitted that Simpson et al, a reference previously applied and of record in the case, fairly teaches the instant two additives now claimed by applicant and provides clear rationale as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would employ such additives. In view of the amendment and the removal of JP -280 from the rejection, arguments directed to this reference are now not in point. Needless to say, given that Simpson et al teaches the instant two additives, it would not constitute an invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to employ them in the process of Wintsch et al.
3.Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
4.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