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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30-32 are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 8, 12, 14-23 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardosh et al. (PG Pub. 2017/0245494) in view of Zolali et al. (“Partial and Complete Wetting in Ultralow Interfacial Tension Multiphase Blends with Polylactide”, Journal of Physical Chemistry, 2016, 120, 12708-12719).
Regarding claim 1, Bardosh et al. teach a gas barrier substrate comprising a biodegradable composite with the biodegradable composite comprising a polymeric matrix blend of a polyhydroxyalkanoate and one or more biodegradable polymers (including those claimed) and a sustainable filler comprising biocarbon [Abstract, 0198].The biodegradable composite has the claimed oxygen transmission rate [0269]. It is noted that although Bardosh et al. do not teach the claimed conditions of the oxygen transmission rate or thickness, the oxygen transmission rate is inherent to the substrate of Bardosh et al. given the disclosed transmission rate under the cited conditions would actually be lower under the claimed conditions and further given such similar materials are taught by Bardosh et al., the claimed oxygen transmission rate under the claimed conditions and thickness is necessarily inherent to Bardosh et al. Bardosh et al. teaches the biodegradable composite comprises the claimed amount of biocarbon [0044 and 0050]. Bardosh et al. teach particle size of the biocarbon as a results effective variable in order to affect the composite properties [0216]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed particle size through routine experimentation given the teachings of Bardosh et al.
Bardosh et al. are silent regarding the quaternary blend. However, Zolali et al. teaches a quaternary blend comprising PLA/PBS/PBAT/PHBV in order to provide biodegradability, improved properties, mechanical strength and toughness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the quaternary blend of Zolali et al. in Bardosh et al. in order to provide biodegradability, improved properties, mechanical strength and toughness and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed water permeation rate. It is noted the water permeation rate taught in Example 7 does not limit the water permeation rate disclosed by Bardosh et al. Further, Bardosh et al. teach inclusion of talc, graphite and biochar which are not included in example 7 and which lower the water permeation rate and would be expected to be in the claimed range given such similar materials are taught in such similar amounts. It is noted that although Bardosh et al. do not teach the claimed conditions of the water permeation rate or thickness, the water permeation rate is inherent to the substrate of Bardosh et al. given the disclosed transmission rate under the cited conditions would actually be lower under the claimed conditions and further given such similar materials are taught by Bardosh et al., the claimed water permeation rate under the claimed conditions and thickness is necessarily inherent to Bardosh et al. and the previous combination.
Regarding claim 8, the sustainable filler is a hybrid filler including biocarbon and starch, talc, graphite and/or clay [0043-0044, 0048, 0058, 0062, 0089, 0112, 0145, 0147 and 0150].
Regarding claim 12, The gas barrier substrate is in the form of a sheet, film, pellet, etc.. [0016 and 0193].
Regarding claim 14, the oxygen transmission rate of the gas barrier substrate is lower than the oxygen transmission rate of each one of PET, nylon or EVOH given the barrier is made of such similar materials.
Regarding claim 15, Bardosh et al. are silent regarding the specific biocarbon. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed specific type of biocarbon as such is well known in the art
Regarding claim 16, the biodegradable composite further comprises a compatibilizer of peroxide wherein the initiator peroxide indirectly acts as a compatibilizer by generating radicals which react and lead to interfacial grafting.
Regarding claim 17, the gas barrier substrate is industrial compostable or home compostable given biodegradable compositions are taught.
Regarding claim 18, the gas barrier substrate is a single layer gas barrier [0294].
Regarding claim 19, the gas barrier substrate is a multi-layer gas barrier film wherein at least one layer that forms the film exhibits gas barrier properties [0101].
Regarding claims 20-21, Bardosh et al. teach an article of manufacture including packaging in the shape of film comprising the gas barrier substrate of claim 1 [0280].
Regarding claim 22, Bardosh et al. teach his invention is drawn to plastics and packaging, but is silent regarding the claimed coffee pod. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the gas barrier substrate of Bardosh et al. in an plastic container or packaging such as coffee pods in order to be environmentally friendly using recycled materials and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 23 and 25-26, Bardosh et al. teach plastics and food packaging and a method of limiting gas permeation into an interior of a package and improving shelf life of a material (including a plant which is food) which shelf life is reduced when exposed to a gas with the method including at least partially or entirely covering the package with an article of manufacture or the material with a gas barrier substrate.
Regarding claim 27, the sustainable filler further comprises graphite.
Regarding claim 28, the sustainable filler comprises biocarbon, starch, talc and graphite. Biocarbon (biochar) is taught as a filler [0044]. Starch is taught as an impact modifier [0048]. Talc is taught as a nucleating agent [0043]. Graphite is taught as a conductive filler used in combination with biocarbon in order to provide conductivity. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed fillers together given the teachings of Bardosh et al. and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 29, the PHA includes poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV) or poly(3-hydroxy) butyrate (PHB) [0036].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bardosh et al. (PG Pub. 2017/0245494) in view of Zolali et al. (“Partial and Complete Wetting in Ultralow Interfacial Tension Multiphase Blends with Polylactide”, Journal of Physical Chemistry, 2016, 120, 12708-12719) in view of Mohanty et al. (PG Pub. 2019/0276315).
Regarding claim 15, Bardosh et al. are silent regarding the specific biocarbon. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed specific type of biocarbon as such is well known in the art. In the alternative, Mohanty et al. teach biochar coming from miscanthus, coffee chaff, etc as a renewable resource. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the biochar coming from miscanthus, coffee chaff etc in order to have a renewable resource and arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
After an updated search, the subject matter of claim 5 which has been incorporated in claim 1, the subject matter of claim 5 which has been incorporated in claim 1 is not allowable given the teachings of Zolali et al. as detailed above. New claims 31-33 have been indicated as allowed. Applicant is invited to cancel the claims which have not been allowed or to amend the claims over the cited art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789