DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The amendment of claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 18, 34 are supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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 new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant's amendment filed on 6/23/2026. Thus, the following action is properly made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 7 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.
Claim 7 broadens the scope of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-8, 11, 14, 18, 20, 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al (JP2011006605) in view of Mohanty et al (US 2015/0361258) and Shan et al (CN103073862).
In setting forth this rejection a machine translation of JP2011006605 has been relied upon and all citations to paragraph numbers in the discussion below are with respect to the machine translation.
Yao teaches a composition comprising 30-80 wt% of polylactic acid, and 20-35wt% of a phosphate such as ammonium polyphosphate [0006, 0024, examples]. Yao further teaches an excellent impact strength is desired [0048, 0068]. The composition comprises polyfunctional compound and glass fiber (examples), the former reads on a melt strength and stability modifier.
Instant specification defines poly(D-lactic acid) as poly-DL-lactide, the latter is polylactic acid (PLA). It indicates polylactic acid reads on the claimed organic nucleating agent. The total amount of PLA of Yao can be divided into two portions to meet the content limitations of the components PLA and the organic nucleating agent.
Yao does not teach a polyether block amide.
However, Mohanty discloses a super tough PLA blends with non-break impact behavior and teaches the blend includes 5-20 wt% of a thermoplastic elastomeric block copolymer such as polyether block amide [abstract, 0064-0072]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include 5-20wt% of polyether block amide into the composition of Yao to further improve impact strength.
Yao does not teach the flame retardant being melamine encapsulated ammonium polyphosphate.
However, Shan discloses a polylactic acid composition and teaches the phosphorus containing flame retardant can be ammonium polyphosphate, melamine coated ammonium polyphosphate [0012]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize melamine coated ammonium polyphosphate because it is recognized in the art that they are interchangeable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument regarding properties of examples 2-3 and 15-16, it is noted that the comparison between examples 2-3 and examples 15-16 is not a fair comparison. Because examples 15-16 contain ingredients nucleating agent and/or chain extender, and the differences on impact strength might result from the presence of nucleating agent and/or chain extender. It is further noted that the property is not recited in the claim and the claim limitation related to the organic nucleating agent is ambiguous.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights