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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 comprises the limitation “wherein in any drying, stretching, or heating the fiber, a total stretching ratio of the fiber in all processes is 3 times or more”, which is confusing.
First the “any” and “all” appear to contradict each other.
Second, what is meant by “processes”? is drying a process? Is the process the same as the method?
Third, it is unclear whether the stretching ratio is conditional of the “drying, stretching, or heating” or it is an additional limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(a) as being anticipated by US 2004/0059055 (herein Inada)
As to claims 1 and 6, Inada discloses comparative example 1, which an uncrosslinked (crosslinking of 0%) version of example 1. Thus, is a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fiber and fiber structure thereof (yarn) with a degree of saponification of 97 mol% and 2 mol% maleic acid anhydride (maleic acid group). The fiber has a strength of 4.5 cN/dtex. All limitations are met. The polymer has 0 mol% crosslinking. See table 1.
As to claim 2, the water absorption is almost complete (much more than 5 times). See table 1. Also see paragraph 27 stating that the fibers absorb 10 times or more. Moreover, the fiber has the same properties (tensile strength), no crosslinking and the same polymer, polyvinyl alcohol and the same functional groups. While not explicitly stating in physiological saline, it is reasonable to take the position that the Inada fiber would also have the claimed water absorption ratio of 5 times or more in physiological saline given it is the same/similar material.
As to claim 3, the PVA dissolves at room temperature. See comparative example 1 and table 1.
As to claim 5, since the comonomer unit amount and saponification degree are within the claimed range, it is reasonable to take the position that the crystallinity would naturally flow from this and be within the claimed range.
As to claim 7, comparative example 1 is prepared by a method of wet spinning and coagulating (solidifying) in methanol/DMSO (organic solvent). The fibers are wet drawn (stretched) at a factor of 3 times and are dried.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,455,114 (herein Ohmory).
As to claim 1 and 6, Ohmory discloses polyvinyl alcohol fibers (PVA, see abstract, col. 3, line 49 through col. 4, line 65 and examples) and fiber structures thereof (e.g. yarns, comprising at least 1 mol% of at least one functional group selected from itaconic acid, acrylic acid, maleic anhydride or ring opened product (maleic acid), arylsulfonic acid, etc. (see col. 5, lines 10-22). The tensile strength is taught as at least 3 g/d (g/denier, which is about 30 cN/dtex), which is within the claimed range. See col. 3, lines 49-55 and examples.
The fibers are water-soluble and not crosslinked (e.g. no crosslinking agents are added). See abstract and examples. In fact, col. 9, lines 25-30 states that the method of Ohmory “effectively prevents” crosslinking reactions. Further, the instant disclosure states that “[w]hen the degree of cross-linking is 0%, the fiber is less likely to become insoluble in water”. Again, in the instant case, the Ohmory fibers are soluble in water. Therefore, it is reasonable to take the position that the Ohmory fibers are 0% crosslinked.
As to claim 2, Ohmory discloses that the fibers absorb water when dissolved in water (see col. 11, lines 55-65). Moreover, the fiber has the same properties (tensile strength), no crosslinking and the same polymer, polyvinyl alcohol and the same functional groups. Therefore, it is reasonable to take the position that the Ohmory fiber would also have the claimed water absorption ratio of 5 times or more given it is the same/similar material.
As to claim 3, Ohmory discloses that the fibers have a dissolution temperature of not more than 40 oC. See col. 13, lines 5-20.
As to claim 4, the degree of saponification is 96 mol% or more. See col. 4, lines 55-65 and examples.
As to claim 5, Ohmory discloses that the fiber’s crystallinity is controlled by the comonomer units and saponification degree. See col. 4, line 38 through col. 5, line 25. Since the comonomer unit amount and saponification degree are within the claimed range, it is reasonable to take the position that the crystallinity would naturally flow from this and be within the claimed range.
As to claim 7, Ohmory discloses a method of producing the fibers of claim 1 comprising wet or dry spinning a stock of polyvinyl alcohol using a dope solvent (organic solvent) capable of solidifying the PVA. See abstract, col. 9, lines 34-44, and examples. The fiber is dried into a ratio of 2 to 8 or 1.1 to 6 (with examples of 5). See col. 10, line 28 through col. 11, line 5 and examples.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,455,114 (herein Ohmory).
The discussion with respect to Ohmory set-forth above is incorporated herein by reference.
It is the examiner’s position that the claims are also rendered obvious over Ohmory. Specifically, Ohmory doesn’t explicitly disclose that the crosslinking is 0% and that the functional group is 1 mol% or more. As to the crosslinking, it would have been to utilize a fiber that has 0% crosslinking because Ohmory (at col. 9, lines 25-30) seeks to prevent crosslinking. Moreover, as to the functional group, Ohmory discloses that the functional group (e.g. acrylic acid) is added in 1 mol% or more in order to improve stability and crystallinity. See paragraph bridging col. 4 and 5. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to have added appropriate amounts of functional groups, including amounts within the claimed range, because one would want to stabilize the fiber and control crystallinity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK S KAUCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-7340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6 PM 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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/MARK S KAUCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764