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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/25 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
As previously set forth: Applicant's election of Group I in the reply filed on 6/4/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The Examiner notes that upon indication of allowable subject matter, claims that include allowable subject matter will be rejoined.
The Examiner removes the species requirements previously set forth. Additionally, though CN 110515989 was used to teach the special technical feature, which was the composition of claim 35, Bruce and Hackfort are deemed to better meet the elected claims (group 1), thus CN ‘989 was not used below
Claims 19-29, 35, 38, 44 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
As previously set forth: The claims have an effective date of the filing of the provisional application: 3/24/20
Claim Objections
Claim 45 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is unclear what the “-58” of the cancelled claim refers to. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant argues Bruce requires the organopolysiloxane and this is now excluded from the claims. Applicant argues there is no motivation to remove such from Bruce.
The Examiner disagrees. The claims allow for “a slip agent”, and, “a heat stabilizer” and the organopolysiloxane seems to meet at least one, if not both, of these. [0065] of Bruce discloses that the organopolysiloxane allows for reduced melt temperatures to be used in the extruder which decreases the char and/or degradation of the composition during processing. This meets the breadth of “heat stabilizer” of the claims. Further, [0066] discloses that it acts to reduce the torque in the extruder. Torque is the ‘slipping’ or rubbing of the composition in contact with the sides of the extruder, the decrease of such because of the organopolysiloxane embraces the ‘slip agent’ additive of the claim. As such Bruce still meets the “consisting of” requirements of the instant claims.
Applicant argues Hackfort does not remedy the above deficiency.
The Examiner disagrees. Hackfort does not need to remedy the above deficiency because the rejection is not deficient for reasons set forth above. Arguments herein are thusly moot.
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, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce WO 2019/152829 (US 2020/0216668 is used below as an Equivalent document) in view of Hackfort (US 2018/0345637).
Elements of this rejection are as previously set forth, reiterated below in its entirety in italics. Regarding the amendments to claim 1: [0065] of Bruce discloses that the organopolysiloxane allows for reduced melt temperatures to be used in the extruder which decreases the char and/or degradation of the composition during processing. This meets the breadth of “heat stabilizer” of claim 1. Further, [0066] discloses that the organopolysiloxane acts to reduce the torque in the extruder. Torque is the ‘slipping’ or rubbing of the composition in contact with the sides of the extruder, the decrease of such because of the organopolysiloxane embraces the ‘slip agent’ additive of the claim. As such Bruce meets the “consisting of” requirements of claim 1.
Bruce discloses compositions comprising 10-90% filler and 10-90% polymer. The filler may comprise alginates or chitosan [0029], wherein the selection of the filler is a function of the final article being formed [0030]. Combining fillers is prima facie obvious, see In re Kerkhoven wherein it has been held prima facie obvious to combine two elements known suitable for the same intended use.
The polymer may be a polyesters or polyolefin (meeting the claimed thermoplastic polymer genus), including polyesters made from cyclic lactones and hydroxycarboxylic acids [0056], (thus embracing polycaprolactone and polylactic acid of claim 11), polyolefins such as polyethylene [0049] (meeting claim 11) and, in addition to the polyester or polyolefin, may further comprise polyvinyl alcohol [0047] (albeit met below this also meets the claimed compatibilizer). The composition may further comprise a compatibilizer [0090] such as maleic anhydride modified polypropylene (meeting the compatibilizer of claim 10) in amounts from 0-10 wt% [0130].
The polyolefin or polyester is used as the main component of the polymer (if a mix of polymers is used) [0046], and when it is used as the main component of the blend all the other components will implicitly be dispersed therein. Though picked from a list of possible combinations, it has been held that though a specific embodiment is not taught as preferred makes it no less obvious, also, that the mere fact that a reference suggests a multitude of possible combinations does not in and of itself make any one of those combinations less obvious, see Merck v. Biocraft, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir 1985)
Bruce includes elements as set forth above. The composition of Bruce may be used for films [0153]. Bruce discloses various fillers including silica, kaolin, mica, talc and alginates but does not disclose the type of alginate used. Hackfort discloses biodegradable films that may be used for molded parts, films or bags (title, abstract), thus akin to the articles of Bruce. Hackfort discloses the film to comprise thermoplastic polymers (the type of polymers used by Bruce) with fillers. The polymers may be polyesters and other thermoplastics such as polyvinyl alcohol, polylactic acid, polycaprolactone [0031], thus embracing the polymers of Bruce. The fillers may be talc, kaolin, mica, silica, calcium alginate, sodium alginate, cellulose, starch and those others of [0087]. These all overlap fillers disclosed in Bruce [0017 of Bruce discloses silica, kaolin, mica, talc, and, [0029] discloses starch, alginates]. Thus, one has a reasonable expectation of success. Hackfort is thusly evidence that calcium and sodium alginates are known types of alginates used as fillers in thermoplastic polymer compositions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Bruce the use of sodium or calcium alginate, as taught by Hackfort, since they are recognized in the art as suitably known alginate fillers for plastic compositions. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), wherein the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.
Bruce and Hackfort include elements as set forth above. Bruce does not disclose the use of plasticizers. Hackfort discloses plasticizers such as polyethylene glycol may be added to the articles therein [0067]. Plasticizers, by definition, are used to increase the flexibility, durability and processability of materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Bruce the use of a plasticizer such as PEG, as taught by Hackfort, to improve the processability of the film.
Elements above meet claims 1, 4. Regarding claim 6: when both chitosan and alginate are used as fillers, since they can individually be used in amounts of 10-90%, any ratio that adds to 10-90% can be used (e.g. a 50:50 mix is immediately envisaged, meeting the 50:50 ratio) of 10% chitosan and 10% alginate can be used as 20% of the overall composition. Likewise the main polymer component may be 100% polyolefin or polyester, or comprise a blend with other polymers, and, in the above example may then be used at 60-80% of the total composition. Hackford discloses the use of at least 15 wt% plasticizer [0060] (herein though this disclosure is how much plasticizer is used to make a thermoplastic starch, Hackford discloses in [0067] that the plasticizers may be added to the starch or bulk polymer, thus one expects the teaching of at least 15 wt% to be a useful amount for the overall composition.), and, the compatibilizer is used in amounts of 0-10 wt%. Thus, when taking the above into account claim 6 is embraced and rendered prima facie obvious.
Elements above meet claims 7, 10, 11, 14
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA BLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-2451. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 am -3:00 pm EST.
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, Curt Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ALICIA BLAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759