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 of Group I with claims 1-21 and 27 in the reply filed on 6/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 22-26 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/17/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: “omega 3” does not define the compound; which is examined as “omega 3 oil” or “omega 3 fatty acid”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being unpatentable over Narayan et. al., (US20060252901, herein Narayan).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5, Narayan teaches reactively blended mixture [0024] as organic peroxide formulation, which comprising polybutylene adipate coterphthalate (PBAT) [0024] reads on the bio-based polymer; 2,5-Bis(tert-butylperoxy)-2,5-dimethylhexane (LUPEROX 101) [0024] reads on the organic peroxide, which is peroxydicarbonate and epoxidized soybean oil [0024] reads on the reactive bio-based additive, and lead to biodegradable starch vegetable oil copolymer [0025] which collectively read on the formation of modified bio-based polymer.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being unpatentable over Narayan et. al., (US20060252901, herein Narayan).
Regarding claims 8-12, Narayan teaches reactively blended mixture [0024] as organic peroxide formulation, which comprising polybutylene adipate coterphthalate (PBAT) and polylactide (PLA) [0024] reads on the bio-based polymers and combined together; 2,5-Bis(tert-butylperoxy)-2,5-dimethylhexane (LUPEROX 101) [0024] reads on the organic peroxide, which is peroxydicarbonate and epoxidized soybean oil [0024] reads on the reactive bio-based additive, and lead to biodegradable starch vegetable oil copolymer [0025] which collectively read on the formation of modified bio-based polymer.
Claims 16, 17, 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being unpatentable over Narayan et. al., (US20060252901, herein Narayan).
Regarding claims 16, 17, 20, 21, Narayan teaches reactively blended mixture [0024] as organic peroxide formulation, which comprising polybutylene adipate coterphthalate (PBAT) and polylactide (PLA) [0024] reads on the bio-based polymers and combined together; 2,5-Bis(tert-butylperoxy)-2,5-dimethylhexane (LUPEROX 101) [0024] reads on the organic peroxide, which is peroxydicarbonate and epoxidized soybean oil [0024] reads on the reactive bio-based additive, and lead to biodegradable starch vegetable oil copolymer [0025] which collectively read on the formation of modified bio-based polymer.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayan et. al., (US20060252901, herein Narayan) as applied in claim 1 as set forth above, in the view of Pletcher et. al., (US20110306698, herein Pletcher).
Regarding claims 3, 7, Narayan teaches organic peroxide formulation as set forth above in claim 1. Narayan is silent on wherein the at least one reactive bio-based additive is selected from the group consisting of Vitamin K compounds, derivatives thereof, and mixtures thereof, however, Pletcher teaches Vitamin K1 [0038], which reads on the scorch retardant additive, with carbon-carbon double bond, structure see below: [Phylloquinone | C31H46O2 | CID 5284607 - PubChem]
PNG
media_image1.png
300
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Narayan and Pletcher are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the organic peroxide-based biopolymeric composition development toward sustainability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Narayan to add the teachings of Pletcher and provide wherein said Vitamin K1 [0038] into composition development. Doing so would further lead to the desired property of vitamin K1 and polymer can be dissolved in a suitable dry, organic solvent to promote uniform distribution [0099] as taught by Pletcher.
Claims 4, 6, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayan et. al., (US20060252901, herein Narayan) as applied in claim 1 as set forth above, in the view of Pavlek et. al., (US20170267832, herein Pavlek).
Regarding claims 4, 27, Narayan teaches organic peroxide formulation as set forth above in claim 1. Narayan teaches epoxidized soybean oil [0024], but does not explicitly teach the wherein the at least one reactive bio-based additive is selected from the group consisting of plant sourced oils comprising at least one carbon-carbon double bond, animal-sourced oils comprising at least one carbon-carbon double bond, bio-based oils comprising at least one carbon-carbon double bond, bio-derived oils comprising at least one carbon-carbon double bond, and mixtures thereof. However, Pavlek teaches tung oil [0138], which reads on the reactive bio-based additive, with carbon-carbon double bond, structure see below: [Tung-Oil.pdf]
PNG
media_image2.png
272
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Narayan and Pavlek are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the organic peroxide-based functional biopolymeric composition development toward sustainability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Narayan to substitute the teachings of Pavlek and provide wherein said tung oil [0138] into composition development. Doing so would further lead to the desired property of the formulation is capable of providing a completely or substantially tack-free elastomer composition [0207] as taught by Pavlek.
Regarding claim 6, Narayan teaches organic peroxide formulation as set forth above in claim 1. Narayan teaches starches reacted with crosslinking agents [0040], but silent on specific crosslinking coagent as claimed. However, Pavlek teaches crosslinking coagent; trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate [0263], with the three vinyl functional groups, structure see below: [Trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate monomethyl ether hydroquinone 250ppm inhibitor, technical grade 3290-92-4]
PNG
media_image3.png
415
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Narayan and Pavlek are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the organic peroxide-based functional biopolymeric composition development toward sustainability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Narayan to substitute the teachings of Pavlek and provide wherein said crosslinking coagent; trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate [0263] into composition development. Doing so would further lead to the desired property of the crosslinking of polymer chains to form a strengthened or hardened polymer [0232] as taught by Pavlek.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayan et. al., (US20060252901, herein Narayan) as applied in claim 8 as set forth above, in the view of Pletcher et. al., (US20110306698, herein Pletcher).
Regarding claim 13, Narayan teaches organic peroxide formulation as set forth above in claim 8. Narayan is silent on wherein the at least one reactive bio-based additive is selected from the group consisting of Vitamin K compounds, derivatives thereof, and mixtures thereof, however, Pletcher teaches Vitamin K1 [0038], which reads on the scorch retardant additive, with carbon-carbon double bond, structure see below: [Phylloquinone | C31H46O2 | CID 5284607 - PubChem]
PNG
media_image1.png
300
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Narayan and Pletcher are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the organic peroxide-based biopolymeric composition development toward sustainability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Narayan to add the teachings of Pletcher and provide wherein said Vitamin K1 [0038] into composition development. Doing so would further lead to the desired property of vitamin K1 and polymer can be dissolved in a suitable dry, organic solvent to promote uniform distribution [0099] as taught by Pletcher.
Claims 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayan et. al., (US20060252901, herein Narayan) as applied in claim 8 as set forth above, in the view of Pavlek et. al., (US20170267832, herein Pavlek).
Regarding claim 14, Narayan teaches organic peroxide formulation as set forth above in claim 8. Narayan does not explicitly teach the wherein the at least one reactive bio-based additive is selected from the group consisting of plant sourced oils comprising at least one carbon-carbon double bond, animal-sourced oils comprising at least one carbon-carbon double bond, bio-based oils comprising at least one carbon-carbon double bond, bio-derived oils comprising at least one carbon-carbon double bond, and mixtures thereof. However, Pavlek teaches tung oil [0138], which reads on the reactive bio-based additive, with carbon-carbon double bond, structure see below: [Tung-Oil.pdf]
PNG
media_image2.png
272
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Narayan and Pavlek are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the organic peroxide-based functional biopolymeric composition development toward sustainability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Narayan to substitute the teachings of Pavlek and provide wherein said tung oil [0138] into composition development. Doing so would further lead to the desired property of the formulation is capable of providing a completely or substantially tack-free elastomer composition [0207] as taught by Pavlek.
Regarding claim 15, Narayan teaches organic peroxide formulation as set forth above in claim 8. Narayan is silent on crosslinking coagent in the organic peroxide formulation. However, Pavlek teaches crosslinking coagent; trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate [0263], with the three vinyl functional groups, structure see below: [Trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate monomethyl ether hydroquinone 250ppm inhibitor, technical grade 3290-92-4]
PNG
media_image3.png
415
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Narayan and Pavlek are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the organic peroxide-based functional biopolymeric composition development toward sustainability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Narayan to substitute the teachings of Pavlek and provide wherein said crosslinking coagent; trimethylolpropane trimethacrylate [0263] into composition development. Doing so would further lead to the desired property of the crosslinking of polymer chains to form a strengthened or hardened polymer [0232] as taught by Pavlek.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayan et. al., (US20060252901, herein Narayan) as applied in claim 16 as set forth above, in the view of Pletcher et. al., (US20110306698, herein Pletcher).
Regarding claim 18, Narayan teaches organic peroxide formulation as set forth above in claim 16. Narayan is silent on wherein the at least one reactive bio-based additive is selected from the group consisting of Vitamin K compounds, derivatives thereof, and mixtures thereof, however, Pletcher teaches Vitamin K1 [0038], which reads on the scorch retardant additive, with carbon-carbon double bond, structure see below: [Phylloquinone | C31H46O2 | CID 5284607 - PubChem]
PNG
media_image1.png
300
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Narayan and Pletcher are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the organic peroxide-based biopolymeric composition development toward sustainability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Narayan to add the teachings of Pletcher and provide wherein said Vitamin K1 [0038] into composition development. Doing so would further lead to the desired property of vitamin K1 and polymer can be dissolved in a suitable dry, organic solvent to promote uniform distribution [0099] as taught by Pletcher.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narayan et. al., (US20060252901, herein Narayan) as applied in claim 16 as set forth above, in the view of Pavlek et. al., (US20170267832, herein Pavlek).
Regarding claim 19, Narayan teaches organic peroxide formulation as set forth above in claim 16. Narayan does not explicitly teach the wherein the at least one reactive bio-based additive is selected from the group consisting of plant sourced oils comprising at least one carbon-carbon double bond, animal-sourced oils comprising at least one carbon-carbon double bond, bio-based oils comprising at least one carbon-carbon double bond, bio-derived oils comprising at least one carbon-carbon double bond, and mixtures thereof. However, Pavlek teaches tung oil [0138], which reads on the reactive bio-based additive, with carbon-carbon double bond, structure see below: [Tung-Oil.pdf]
PNG
media_image2.png
272
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Narayan and Pavlek are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor, that of the organic peroxide-based functional biopolymeric composition development toward sustainability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Narayan to substitute the teachings of Pavlek and provide wherein said tung oil [0138] into composition development. Doing so would further lead to the desired property of the formulation is capable of providing a completely or substantially tack-free elastomer composition [0207] as taught by Pavlek.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zhen Liu whose telephone number is (703)756-4782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571)272-1197. 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.
/Z.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767