DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Remarks and Amendments filed September 3, 2025 in regards to a 371 application filed May 2, 2022 claiming priority to PCT/EP2020/080356 filed October 29, 2020 and to foreign application EP19207196.7 filed November 5, 2019. Claim 3 has been amended. Claims 1-10 are currently being examined.
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 .
Response to Argument
In view of the Amendments to the Abstract, the objection to the Specification has been withdrawn.
In view of the Remarks and Amendments, the rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 USC § 103 have been maintained.
Only focal arguments which are related to the patentability of the instant Application are addressed as follows:
In regards to claim 1, Applicant traverses the rejection using the prior art of Sipos et al. (WO 2013/062408 A1) in view of Knudsen et al. (US 2013/0256323 A1) stating prior to this application, “there was no information on what kind of oxygen scavenger compounds would be miscible with and suitable for poly(ethylene furanoate)”. First, the instant claim 1 is to a poly(alkylene-2,5-furandicarboxylate), not only a poly(ethylene furanoate) which is only one of a number of poly(alkylene-2,5-furandicarboxylates). Sipos et al. disclose a poly(alkylene-2,5-furandicarboxylate) which provides a reduction in oxygen penetration compared to polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and that oxygen scavengers can be used to further increase the shelf life of packaging containers and thereby can reduce the quantity of oxygen scavenger needed compared to a conventional PET bottle [p.9, lines 26-28]. Second, poly(ethylene furanoate) is a chemical analogue of polyethylene terephthalate and to one of ordinary skill in the art would have the reasonable expectation that they would have similar properties such as miscibility. Since Sipos et al. do not disclose the oxygen scavenger of polybutadiene sacrificial material, Knudsen et al. has been used to introduce the oxygen scavenger of butadiene. Knudsen et al. disclose a polyester composition comprising polyethylene terephthalate, an oxygen scavenger of polybutadiene, and an oxidation catalyst (i.e., transition metal catalyst) and since poly(ethylene furanoate) is a chemical analogue of polyethylene terephthalate, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the poly(ethylene furanoate) of Sipos et al. for the polyethylene terephthalate of Knudsen et al..
In addition, Applicant traverses the rejection stating that the polyethylene terephthalate with the sacrificial polybutadiene contains 2 ppm of dissolved oxygen after 40 days which would be too much for example, a beer application where 1 ppm is too much. Knudsen et al. disclose in Figure 2 for the stated sacrificial polybutadienes of 1 ppm or less, not 2 ppm as alleged. In addition, Sipos et al. stated that the poly(alkylene -2,5-furandicarboxylate) would have for the same quantity of oxygen scavenger, a reduced amount of oxygen penetration, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have the reasonable expectation of an even lower amount of dissolved oxygen after 40 days. Also, the amount of dissolved oxygen is not a limitation of the instant claims. The rejection of the instant claims is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sipos et al. (WO 2013/062408 A1) in view of Knudsen et al. (US 2013/0256323 A1) or Takao et al. (JP 2011-157411 A – machine translation).
In regards to claims 1 and 7, Sipos et al. disclose a polyester comprising a poly(alkylene-2,5-furandicarboxylate), having a number average molecular weight of at least 25,000, and produced by a transesterification step, a polycondensation step, a drying and/or crystallization step, and a post-condensation step as well as the polyester is formed into bottles, films, or fiber-containing woven or non-woven objects by melt-processing [Abstract]. Sipos et al. disclose the poly(alkylene-2,5-furandicarboxylate) of poly(ethylene-2,5-furandicarboxylate) [Abstract]. Sipos et al. disclose poly(alkylene-2,5-furandicarboxylate) provides a reduction in the oxygen penetration compared to PET containers and that oxygen scavengers can be used to further increase the shelf life of packaging containers made from poly(alkylene-2,5-furandicarboxylate) wherein the quantity of oxygen scavenger can be reduced relative to amount which is needed in a conventional PET bottle [p.9, lines 26-28].
Sipos et al. do not disclose the oxygen scavenger composition comprising a polybutadiene sacrificial material and an oxidation catalyst.
Knudsen et al. disclose a polyester composition comprising a polyester such as polyethylene terephthalate or polylactic acid and an oxygen scavenger composition comprising a polybutadiene polymer with and without an additional polar moiety such as maleic anhydride and an oxidation catalyst (i.e., transition metal catalyst) and the composition is used in preforms, containers, and films for packaging [0007, 0094-0104; Abstract; Claim 1; Figure 2]. Knudsen et al. disclose a similar type of polymer with polyesters and the similar need to reduce oxygen penetration using an oxygen scavenging composition comprising a polybutadiene polymer with an oxidation catalyst which to one of ordinary skill in the art would be obvious to incorporate into the polyester composition of Sipos et al. to address a need to further improve the shelf life of polyester packaging containers and films by reducing the oxygen penetration.
Takao et al. disclose a polyester composition comprising a polyester and an oxygen scavenging composition comprising a polybutadiene compound and an oxidation catalyst (i.e., transition metal catalyst) [Abstract; Examples 1-2; Table 1] for use in packaging containers such as bottles having an excellent oxygen absorption capacity. Takao et al. disclose a similar type of polymer with polyesters and the similar need to reduce oxygen penetration using an oxygen scavenging composition comprising a polybutadiene polymer with an oxidation catalyst which to one of ordinary skill in the art would be obvious to incorporate into the polyester composition of Sipos et al. to address a need to further improve the shelf life of polyester packaging containers and films by reducing the oxygen penetration.
In regards to claims 2-3, Knudsen et al. disclose 0.1 to 5% by weight of the composition of the polybutadiene polymer [0079] and 10 to 5000 ppm (0.001 to 0.5 %) by weight of the transition metal catalyst [0054] for a total of 0.101 to 5.5% by weight of the oxygen scavenger composition and the remainder of the polyester.
In regards to claim 4, Sipos et al. disclose the poly(alkylene-2,5-furandicarboxylate) of poly(ethylene-2,5-furandicarboxylate) [Abstract].
In regards to claim 5-6, Sipos et al. disclose poly(ethylene-2,5-furandicarboxylate) and the presence of carboxylic end groups and hydroxyl end groups and/or furoic acid end groups is common due to the polymerization process to form the poly(ethylene-2,5-furandicarboxylate) and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the poly(ethylene-2,5-furandicarboxylate) would comprise the end groups in the limitations of the claims.
In regards to claims 8-10, Sipos et al. [p.9, lines 26-28], Knudsen et al. [0081] and Takao et al. [Examples1-2] disclose injection blow molding, which requires the process of extruding a composition through a die to make a preform and blow molded to form a bottle or container or a film for packaging.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD GRINSTED whose telephone number is (571)270-7634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/RONALD GRINSTED/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763