DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 5/26/2026.
The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 75 is allowable. The restriction requirement between Group I and Groups II-III and V, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 11/6/2024, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of Groups II-III and V is withdrawn. Claims 75, 78, 88-90 and 92-94 are directed to species (claims 75, 78) or inventions (claims 88-90 and 92-94) no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim.
However, claim 91 remains directed to an invention which is withdrawn from consideration because it does not require all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 86-90 are 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.
Regarding claim 86: Claim 86 depends from claim 75 and states that the amount of PVOH may be in the range of 91.5 to 99.3 wt%. Note, however, that independent claim 75 states that the maximum amount of PVOH is 99 wt%. Similarly, claim 86 states that the amount of bioplastic may be in the range of 0 to 1 wt%, whereas the independent claim requires that the minimum amount of bioplastic is 0.1 wt%. Claim 86 therefore impermissibly broadens the scope of the claimed invention to include amounts of PVOH and bioplastic which are outside the ranges required by the independent claim.
Regarding claim 87: Claim 87 recites a species of composition comprising 91.5-99.3 wt% PVOH, 0.1-0.5 wt% PVAA, and 0-1 wt% PEO. Similar to discussion in the previous paragraph, this species broadens the scope of the parent claim to read on compositions wherein the amount of PVOH is higher than 99 wt%.
Regarding claims 88, 89: Claim 88 recites a process utilizing “an amount of” PAA, PEO, and PVOH; note that the phrase “an amount of” reads on any amount of each polymer. In contrast, the parent claim 75 recited 50 to 99 wt% PVOH, 0.1 to 20 wt% crosslinking compound (i.e., the PAA); and 0.1 to 50 wt% bioplastic (i.e., the PEO). Claim 88 therefore broadens the scope of the parent claim to read on the use of any amount of these components.
Claim 89 depends from claim 88 and does not correct this deficiency. The claim is therefore rejected per the same rationale as claim 88.
Regarding claims 90: Claim 90 recites a process utilizing “an amount of” PAA and PVOH and “an effective amount” of PEO; note that these phrases read on any amount of each polymer. In contrast, the parent claim 75 recited 50 to 99 wt% PVOH, 0.1 to 20 wt% crosslinking compound (i.e., the PAA); and 0.1 to 50 wt% bioplastic (i.e., the PEO). Claim 90 therefore broadens the scope of the parent claim to read on the use of any amount of these components.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/26/2026, with respect to the use of water in Huang have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection over Verrall in view of Yoshino and Huang has therefore been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 75, 78, 79, 84, 85, and 92-95 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The following references are relevant to the patentability of the instant claims.
Verrall, US2008/0110370, discloses a composition comprising polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH), a crosslinking agent, and chitosan (abstract). Said composition is used in the production of films (for claim 75) (¶0028). Verrall broadly teaches that said film can be prepared via any suitable method (0028); however, Verrall only specifically discloses the preparation of films from aqueous compositions. Verrall does not teach the production of pellets, nor does it teach the production of a water-free, homogeneous composition.
Huang, CN105482326, discloses the production of thin films (abstract) from crosslinked PVOH-based compositions (page 2: lines 21-28). As taught by Huang, it was known that films could be made from such compositions by dry mixing the components in a high speed mixer to uniformly (i.e., homogeneously) mix the components to obtain a mixed powder (for claim 96), put the mixed powder into a granulator to granulate it (i.e., form pellets (for claim 97), and use the particle to make a blown film (page 3: lines 7-15). Note, however, that Huang teaches the inclusion of water as an auxiliary film forming agent in such compositions and therefore does not teach the production of a water-free, homogeneous composition in the form of pellets.
The prior art of record therefore does not teach or suggest the production of a water-free, homogeneous composition in the form of pellets as required by the instant claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY S LENIHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 5:30-2:00PM.
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, Heidi Riviere Kelley can be reached at 571-270-1831. 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.
/JEFFREY S LENIHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765
Prosecution Insights