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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (Claims 1 – 7) in the reply filed on (8 – 5 – 2025) is acknowledged. Consequently, Species II (Claim(s) 8) is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the same reply filed on (8 – 5 – 2025).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2 & 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Currently claims 2 and 4 utilize the verbiage, “120 degree Celsius to 160 degrees Celsius” and “155 °C”, respectively. Applicant should choose a single version of “degree Celsius” or “°C” for claim consistency.
Regarding claim 2, reads “…120 degree Celsius…” it should read “…120 degrees Celsius…” for the purposes of claim consistency. Alternatively, applicant bay change “…160 degrees…” to read “…160 degree…”. Namely, either degree or degrees should be used for both temperature values.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1 & 4 – 5 is/are 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.
Currently, claim 1 recites “…twin-screw and barrel extruder…” then goes on to site “…the screws of the extruder…” it should read “…the twin-screws of the extruder…” and “and in an annulus between the screws of the extruder” should read “…and in an annulus between the twin-screws of the extruder…” and “between screw and barrel” should read “between a screw of the twin-screws and barrel” .
Similarly, as above in claim 5 it recites “wherein the screws are driven at a faster advance through a heated extruder barrel.” It should read “wherein the twin-screws are driven at a faster advance through a heated extruder barrel.” For the purposes of claim consistency.
Currently claim 1 recites “the graphene-polymer nanocomposite” lacks in the second to last line lacks antecedent basis. Should read it should read “the biodegradable polymer nanocomposite”. For the purposes of examination, it will be understood to be the biodegradable polymer nanocomposite
Currently claim 4 recites “wherein the matrix of biodegradable polymer is extruded at 155°C through an extruder of 16 mm diameter” It should read “wherein the matrix of biodegradable polymer is extruded at 155°C through
Currently, claim 5 recites “…a heated extruder barrel…” in the last line. It is unclear if this is same extruder namely, “twin-screw and barrel extruder” previously recited in claim 1, a subset of “twin-screw and barrel extruder” previously recited in claim 1, or an entirely separately structure than “twin-screw and barrel extruder” previously recited in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the extruder of claim 5 will be understood to be the same extruder as that mentioned in claim 1.
The term “…driven at a faster advance through a heated extruder barrel.” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “faster” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, it will be understood to be “…the screws are driven
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
A.) Claim(s) 1, 3 & 5 – 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (CN 107841111 A, hereinafter Zheng) as evidenced by Appropedia (Twin Screw Extruder Design Literature Review, 2022) and in view of Govindaraj et al. (Distribution states of Graphene in Polymer Nanocomposite, 2021, hereinafter Govindaraj)Regarding claim 1,
A method for producing biodegradable polymer nanocomposite, the method comprising:
- dispersing a plurality of graphene nanoplatelets into a matrix of biodegradable polymer; and
- extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer containing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets to obtain the biodegradable polymer nanocomposite,
using twin-screw and barrel extruder,
wherein the extruder is configured to allow for a maximum available shear force in an annulus between the two screws in a twin-screw configuration and
in an annulus between the screws of the extruder and the barrel
such that the shear developed between screws or between screw and barrel is sufficient to deagglomerate agglomerated graphene nanoplatelets in the matrix of biodegradable polymer and
wherein a cross-linking between molecules of the graphene-polymer nanocomposite is formed during heating and melting in the extruder by heating elements placed over the barrel.
Zheng teaches the following:
, b.) & c.) ([0019]) teaches mixing the surface-modified graphene nanosheets and polylactic acid (PLA) particles uniformly, and grinding them in a three-roll mill for 20 to 30 minutes to obtain a polylactic acid graphene mixture. ([0020]) adding that the polylactic acid graphene mixture is mixed with chitosan, nano-montmorillonite, silane coupling agent, silica sol, and diamino diphenylmethane tetraglycidyl amine in a high-speed mixer. After being mixed evenly, the mixture is added to the hopper of a twin-screw extruder. Carbon fiber and glass fiber are added from the fiber feeding port of the twin-screw extruder. The mixture is melt-blended and extruded. Highlighting, that PLA is understood to be a biodegradable polymer.
– e.) & g.) As noted in ([0020]) melt-blending and extrusion transpires in a twin-screw extruder as such, the extruder is understood to have provide a shear force for the melt-blending to occur. Additionally, the twin-screw extruder is understood to comprise annulus between the two screws in a twin-screw configuration and in an annulus between the screws of the extruder and the barrel. Highlighting evidence from Appropedia which illustrate a twin-screw extruder that comprises a barrel and heater around the barrel. Highlighting, that an annulus is illustrated between both the two screws and between the screws of
PNG
media_image1.png
590
1432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the extruder and the barrel.
Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable result provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Wherein, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
As noted above in ([0020]) during extrusion the mixture is melt-blended and extruded. As such, melting is understood to take place during extrusion, where the melting results in cross-linking between molecules of the graphene-polymer nanocomposite. Highlighting, that the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited regarding any perceived discrepancies with Zheng teaching cross-linking between molecules of the graphene-polymer nanocomposite is formed during heating and melting. Where, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2144. Furthermore, regarding the heating elements being placed over the barrel is understood to be a limitation directed towards the apparatus and its structure that was utilized for the method which the claim is directed towards. Noting, that as mentioned above, the extruder of Zheng is understood of being capable of melting / melt-blended the composition and thus is capable of heating the composition. As such, the case law for structural limitation within method claims may be recited. Where it has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeifer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961).
Regarding Claim 1, Zheng is silent on the shear developed between screws or between screw and barrel is sufficient to deagglomerate agglomerated graphene nanoplatelets in the matrix of biodegradable polymer. In analogous art for a polymeric graphene composite material that are extruded to form a composite article, Govindaraj suggests details regarding the shear developed between screws or between screw and barrel is sufficient to deagglomerate agglomerated graphene nanoplatelets in the matrix of biodegradable polymer, and in this regard, Govindaraj teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches that the most critical challenge in translating properties in high-performance graphene polymer nanocomposite is to alleviate the agglomeration of graphene. This can be achieved by improving the distribution states of graphene in the matrix by; (1) enhancing the dispersion and (2) controlling the relative lattice orientation of graphene in substrates to create an alignment or orientation. (4.1.1. Physical Dispersion Methods, ¶2) teaches that stirring method applies a shear force to disperse the graphene. It includes high shear, magnetic, and friction stir processes. The high shear and magnetic stirring process are commonly used for polymer while the friction stir process is used for dispersion graphene in metal matrices. (4.1.1. Physical Dispersion Methods, ¶5) Homogenous dispersion of graphene in polymer matrix depends on the viscosity of the melt, temperature, shear rate, and mixing time. (4.2.2, Shear Induced Orientation, ¶1) teaches that the shear-induced alignment is also an established technique to fabricate oriented composites by methods, such as, extrusion, amongst others.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an extruded polymeric graphene composite material that melt mixed and extruded to form a graphene composite article of Zheng. By modifying the extruder to provide an optimized shear force during the extrusion of nanocomposite with graphene, as taught by Govindaraj. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement an optimized shear force for the extruder as it provides for a mechanism for dispersion and orientation of graphene in polymer matrix composites such that by applying physical forces it provides to separate agglomerated graphene via, shear forces, (4.1.1. Physical Dispersion Methods, ¶5 & 4.2.2, Shear Induced Orientation, ¶1)Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein a depth of the conveying channel of the screw is contoured from large to small in a flow direction of the molten biodegradable polymer nanocomposite to account for a density change of the biodegradable polymer nanocomposite from solid state to liquid state and to account for a pressure development.
Zheng teaches the following:
([0020]) melt-blending and extrusion transpires in a twin-screw extruder.
PNG
media_image2.png
467
1133
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Highlighting evidence from Appropedia which illustrate a twin-screw extruder that comprises a barrel and heater around the barrel. Highlighting, that the conveying channel of the screw are contoured from large to small in a flow direction of the molten polymer.
Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable result provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Wherein, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.Furthermore, regarding the conveying channel of the screw is contoured from large to small is understood to be a limitation directed towards the apparatus and its structure that was utilized for the method which the claim is directed towards. As such, the case law for structural limitation within method claims may be recited. Where it has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeifer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961).
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
The method further comprises
extruding the matrix of biodegradable polymer prior to dispersing the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets thereon,
wherein the screws are driven at a faster advance through a heated extruder barrel.
Zheng teaches the following:
([0020]) teaches that the polylactic acid graphene mixture is placed into a hopper of a twin-screw extrude followed by extrusion to form an extruded product. Highlighting, while the biodegradable polymer and graphene are understood to be dispersed and extruded simultaneously vs. extrusion followed by dispersion. The case law for sequential vs simultaneous steps may be recited. Where, in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959).
PNG
media_image1.png
590
1432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0020]) teaches that during extrusion the composition is melt-blended. As such, the extruder / screws are understood to provide a heated environment hat melts the composition. Highlighting evidence from Appropedia which illustrate a twin-screw extruder that comprises a barrel and heater around the barrel. Highlighting, that an annulus is illustrated between both the two screws and between the screws of the extruder and the barrel.
Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable result provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Wherein, "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the plurality of graphene nanoplatelets is composed of: functionalized graphene, doped graphene, graphene oxide, reduced graphene oxide, or a combination thereof.
Zheng teaches the following:
([0018]) teaches a surface-modification technique to form surface-modified graphene nanosheets. ([0020]) teaches that the surface-modified graphene nanosheets are mixed to form an extruded product. Where the surface-modified graphene nanosheets are understood to be a type of functionalized graphene
B.) Claim(s) 2, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as evidenced by Appropedia in view of Govindaraj and in further view of Zhen et al. (CN 108752633 A, hereinafter Zhen)
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the extrusion is performed at a temperature in a range of 120 degree Celsius to 160 degrees Celsius.
Regarding Claim 2, Zheng in view of Govindaraj is silent on the extrusion being performed at a temperature in a range of 120 degree Celsius to 160 degrees Celsius. In analogous art for a polymeric composite material comprising PLA with fibers that are extruded to form a composite article ([0029]), Zhen suggests details regarding the extrusion being performed at a temperature in a range of 120 degree Celsius to 160 degrees Celsius, and in this regard, Zhen teaches the following:
([0022]) teaches that the polylactic acid-modified graphene oxide nanocomposite material is obtained according to the following method the modified graphene oxide is placed into a twin-screw extruder, raising the temperature in the twin-screw extruder to 120 °C to 180 °C under nitrogen protection, and reacting at the temperature of 120 °C to 180 °C for 0.5 to 3 hours; second, once the reaction product is extruded through the twin-screw extruder, it is cooled to room temperature. As such, the extrusion range of 120 °C to 180 °C for the polylactic acid-modified graphene oxide nanocomposite material is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of 120 degree Celsius to 160 degrees Celsius.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an extruded polymeric graphene composite material that melt mixed and extruded to form a graphene composite article of Zheng in view of Govindaraj. By further augmenting the extrusion of the polylactic acid graphene composite material to be at a temperature in the range of 120 °C to 180 °C, as taught by Zhen. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement an extrusion temperature of 120 °C to 180 °C for the polylactic acid graphene composite material as it provides for
C.) Claim(s) 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as evidenced by Appropedia in view of Govindaraj in view of Zhen and in further view of Bailey et al. (US 20140073745 A1, hereinafter Bailey)Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein matrix of biodegradable polymer is extruded at 155 °C through an extruder of 16 mm diameter.
Regarding Claim 4, Zheng in view of Govindaraj is silent on the extrusion being performed at a temperature of 155 degrees °C. In analogous art for a polymeric composite material comprising PLA with fibers that are extruded to form a composite article ([0029]), Zhen suggests details regarding the extrusion being performed at a temperature in a range of 120 degree Celsius to 160 degrees Celsius, and in this regard, Zhen teaches the following:
([0022]) teaches that the polylactic acid-modified graphene oxide nanocomposite material is obtained according to the following method the modified graphene oxide is placed into a twin-screw extruder, raising the temperature in the twin-screw extruder to 120 °C to 180 °C under nitrogen protection, and reacting at the temperature of 120 °C to 180 °C for 0.5 to 3 hours; second, once the reaction product is extruded through the twin-screw extruder, it is cooled to room temperature. As such, the extrusion range of 120 °C to 180 °C for the polylactic acid-modified graphene oxide nanocomposite material is understood to overlap with applicant’s range of 155 degree Celsius.
The same rejection rationale, and analysis that was used previously for claim 2, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.Regarding Claim 4, Zheng in view of Govindaraj and Zhen is silent on the extrusion being performed through an extruder of 16 mm diameter. In analogous art for a polymeric composite material comprising biodegradable polymers including PLA with additives that are extruded to form a composite article (Abstract), Bailey suggests details regarding the extrusion being performed through an extruder of 16 mm diameter, and in this regard, Bailey teaches the following:
([0064]) teaches that blending was conducted using a Prism twin screw extruder with counter rotating 250 mm screws, 16 mm in diameter, with a diameter ratio of 15 with the screw speed set at 100 rpm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an extruded polymeric graphene composite material that melt mixed and extruded to form a graphene composite article of Zheng in view of Govindaraj. By further augmenting the extrusion of the polylactic acid graphene composite material to be performed through an extruder of 16 mm diameter, as taught by Bailey. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement an extruder with a 16 mm diameter as it provides for a known means for forming compounded polymers, ([0064]). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and /or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
C.) Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng as evidenced by Appropedia in view of Govindaraj and in further view of Ning et al. (Crystallization behaviors and morphology of biodegradable…2011, hereinafter Ning)
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the biodegradable polymer is composed of is composed of Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) and
the loading of graphene nanoplatelets on the PHA is 1% by weight.
Regarding Claim 7, Zheng in view of Govindaraj is silent on the biodegradable polymer is composed of is composed of Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) and the loading of graphene nanoplatelets on the PHA is 1% by weight. In analogous art for a polymeric composite material comprising a biodegradable polymer (Abstract), Ning suggests details regarding the extrusion being performed through an extruder of 16 mm diameter, and in this regard, Ning teaches the following:
& b.) (Introduction, ¶3) teaches that the addition of nanoparticles into polymer matrix to form nanocomposites has provided a promising method to improve the performance of materials, various compositions including biodegradable aliphatic polyester/graphene nanocomposites have attracted much attention. For example, Tong et al. investigated the blends of polylactide (PLA) and graphene obtained via solution-cast method and found that the crystallization, thermal stability, and mechanical properties of PLA were improved by adding graphene. Herein, biodegradable P(3HB-co-4HB)/graphene nanocomposites were prepared via solution and coagulation method at various graphene loadings ranging from 0.5 to 2 mass % in order to get a better dispersion of graphene in the P(3HB-co-4HB) matrix. As such, PHA is understood to be established as an equivalent biodegradable polymer to (PLA) and the use of Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) as the biodegradable polymer with a graphene loadings ranging from 0.5 to 2 mass (weight) % is understood to be disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing an extruded polymeric graphene composite material that melt mixed and extruded to form a graphene composite article of Zheng in view of Govindaraj. By further augmenting the composition to comprise Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) with a loading of graphene in the range of 0.5 to 2 mass (weight) %, as taught by Ning. Highlighting, one would be motivated to utilize a Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) in place of PLA with a graphene loading of 0.5 to 2 mass (weight) % as it provides for a homogeneous dispersion of graphene nanoparticles together with strong interfacial interactions between polymer matrix and graphene nanoparticles can effectively improve the thermal, mechanical, and biodegradation performances of the P(3HB-co-4HB) matrix, (Results and Discussion, Phase Morphology, ¶1) and as they are understood to be an equivalent biodegradable polymer. Accordingly, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07. Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Joerg Doerrstein (US 20220002504 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) that a method for manufacturing a composite material, comprising the following steps: a) plasticizing a binder in an extruder, wherein the binder comprises a polymer; b) providing a mixture of a cellulosic material and a hydrophobic agent dissolved and/or dispersed in a liquid carrier; c) mechanically shearing and drying the mixture in an extruder whereby liquid is at least partly extracted from the mixture or is not present in liquid form anymore. ([0022]) teaches that compression forces can be generated by a reduction in screw channel depth as well as the ratio of barrel diameter to screw diameter.
Korzhenko et al. (US 20110201731 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) that he present invention relates to a method for preparing composites based on nanotubes, especially carbon nanotubes, to the composites thus obtained and to their use for the manufacture of composite products.
James Wang (US 20090291607 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) A method for forming a biodegradable aliphatic-aromatic copolyester suitable for use in fibers is provided. In one embodiment, for example, an aliphatic-aromatic copolyester is melt blended with an alcohol to initiate an alcoholysis reaction that results in a copolyester having one or more hydroxyalkyl or alkyl terminal groups.
Quinebeche et al. (WO 2014074377 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) that the present invention relates to impact modifiers in polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA's), including polylactic acid (PLA). The impact modifiers comprise mixtures of a core-shell impact modifier and a glycidyl methacrylate containing ethylene copolymer (GMA copolymer). Improved impact performance is realized at low levels of total impact modifier.
Erdmann et al. (Thermal Properties of…https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8122600/- cellulose acetate extrusion temperature, 2021) – teaches in the (Abstract) A cellulose acetate (CA), an organic ester, is a biobased polymer which exhibits good mechanical properties (e.g., high Young’s modulus and tensile strength). In recent decades, there has been significant work done to verify the thermal and thermomechanical behaviors of raw and plasticized cellulose acetate. In this study, the thermomechanical properties of plasticized cellulose acetate
Shojaeiarani et al. (Deterioration in the Physico-Mechanical…https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6401911/pdf/polymers-11-00058.pdf, 2019) – teaches in the (Abstract) Biopolymers are an emerging class of materials being widely pursued due to their ability to degrade in short periods of time. Understanding and evaluating the recyclability of biopolymers is paramount for their sustainable and efficient use in a cost-effective manner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743