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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14 are supported by the specification. The new claims 34-35 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Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 5, 8, 11, 14, 18, 34 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of a list of numerical ranges is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: they are not recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Claims 8, 18, 34 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 8 does not further limit claim 1.
Claim 18 does not further limit claim 1.
Claim 34 does not further limit claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-8, 14, 17-18, 20, 34-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (CN103146161) in view of Shan et al (CN103073862) and Wu et al (CN102134379).
Liu teaches a composition comprising 70-80 wt% of polylactic acid, 5-10 wt% of a toughening agent, 2-10 wt% of a nucleating agent and 5-15 wt% of a flame retardant [0017]. The toughening agent can be polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate [0091-0094]. The flame retardant can be polyphosphate amine (i.e. ammonium polyphosphate) [0034, 0080]. The nucleating agent can be talc which reads on a reinforcing filler [0052, 0035]. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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 Liu can be divided into two portions to meet the content limitations of the components PLA and the organic nucleating agent.
Liu 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.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (CN103146161) in view of Shan et al (CN103073862) and Wu et al (CN102134379) and further in view of Zhu et al (US 2014/0080975).
Liu, Shan and Wu teach the limitation of claim 1, as discussed above.
Liu, Shan and Wu do not teach a melt strength modifier.
However, Zhu discloses a flame retardant polylactic acid composition and teaches an oligomeric chain extender can increase physical performance of the composition [0044]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include an oligomeric chain extender in the composition of Liu to increase physical performance of the composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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