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 .
Petition to Revive
Applicants petition to Revive under 37 C.F.R. 1.134(a) was granted on May 20, 2026. Pending claims are 1 and 3-15. Claim 2 has been cancelled and its limitation included in the instant claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments directed to nature of the Cashew flour are persuasive. Rejections of record are withdrawn; new prior art has been identified and is applied in this office action.
Claim Interpretation
Instant claims contain term “micronized” which is not explicitly defined in the specification. Consequently, a definition established in the art will be accepted. This definition is specifically in terms of feldspar is: A highly finely ground form of feldspar mineral processed to achieve particle sizes in micrometer scale.
Consistent with this definition, any prior art that teaches feldspar mineral having particle size in micron scale is processed and therefore meets the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 is 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.
Amended claim 1 requires plasticizer for the starch and/or protein material to be excluded from the scope of the claims.
Claim 3, depends on claim 1 and allows presence of such plasticizer to be up to 40% by weight. Consequently claim 3 fails to narrow the scope of instant claim 1. The examiner suggests cancelling claim 3.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites that the composition does not contain plasticizers for starch and/or protein. At the same time claim 8 recites plasticizers for biodegradable composition. It is not clear if the two plasticizers are the same or different, further making scope of claim 1 indefinite.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 4, 8-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WU (CN 108395868 translation attached).
With respect to claim 1, Wu discloses following biodegradable composition (Example 2) [0046-0050] In parenthesis content is in % by weight:
32 (21 wt.%) of polylactic acid
28 (18.5 wt.%) parts of polyvinyl alcohol
22 (14.5 wt.%) parts of starch
16 parts of polyethylene (encompassed by the term comprising)
12 (7.9 wt.%) parts of gum Arabic (meets the definition of protein)
8 parts of calcium stearate (lubricant)
10 parts of calcium carbonate (filler)
12 (7.9 wt%) parts of mineral modifier which includes feldspar which powder passed through 100 mesh equivalent to 149 microns or less. Consequently, feldspar is micronized. There are three compounds in the modifier: nanographene, feldspar and olivine in ratio of 7:3:1, consequently feldspar is 2.15 wt. %
8 parts of degradation additive
3 parts of crosslinking agent.
Example 3 of Wu discloses feldspar passing through 55 mesh which is equivalent to approximately 300 microns.
The ranges of components in WU
With respect to claim 3, Wu’s example does not teach use of plasticizer for either protein or starch, which is encompassed by instant range of at most 40%.
With respect to claims 4, Wu’s example discloses use of polylactic acid which is PLA. The content of PLA is 32 parts, the overall content of biodegradable polymer (including polyvinyl alcohol) is 60 parts (39.7 wt.%). Both amounts are within claimed range of 30-70 wt.%.
With respect to claim 8, Wu discloses use of inert fillers (calcium carbonate), Lubricants (calcium stearate (see examples above).
With respect to claims 9-11, the process of Wu is accomplished by combining components in a high-speed mixer (step 1) to mix it (example 3) for amounts please see rejection of claim 1. The components are compression molded (step 4) at a temperature of 165oC, which will inherently melt the polymeric composition.
With respect to claim 13, Wu discloses process of making a solid article such as mobile phone case [0052].
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (CN 115322547 translation attached) in view of WU (CN 108395868 translation attached).
With respect to claim 1, Shi discloses composition for making biodegradable plastic bag, wherein the biodegradable plastic bag meets the limitations of instant claims 13-15. The composition of Shi comprises 70-100 parts of biodegradable resin, 10-20 parts of filler, 2-4 parts of antioxidant (claim 1), 1-3 parts lubricant. Filler is a combination of starch, feldspar and wood flour (claim 4) in a ratio of (3-5) to (1-3) to (3-5). Aluminate and silane coupling agents are also utilized in a ratio of (1:2) to (1:3) [0019]. Coupling agent is utilized in an amount of 3 parts per 100 parts of starch. Consequently, the content of the biodegradable polymer in the composition is approximately 70 wt.%.
According to process in Shi, feldspar is crushed in presence of lubricant into a powder, however Shi does not explicitly state that the feldspar is micronized to any specific particles size. Shi does not disclose particle size.
Wu, discloses another biodegradable composition which comprises biodegradable polymer with starch and feldspar. In order to form degradable article, the feldspar is ground or milled such that the particles size of the feldspar such that if can function as a filler. The particle size is 100 mesh or 55 mesh which would render the feldspar micronized. See rejection of Wu from paragraph 1 of this office action.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant inventio to utilize feldspar powder of Shi having particle size as disclosed by Wu and thereby obtain the claimed invention. Powder having such particle size will act as a filler without affecting mechanical properties of the biodegradable bag.
With respect to claim 3, Shi does not utilize plasticizer.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, polymers utilized by Shi include PHA, PHB and PLA (claim 1). Content of the biodegradable polymer was shown in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 8, Shi utilizes lubricants and antioxidants.
With respect to claim 9, 10, 13-15, ingredients are mixed in an extruder and melt extruded to form granulates which is similar in nature to pellet but only different in particle size. The granulates are melted and blown into a film (sheet) and hot pressed into a bag (packaging).
With respect to claim 11, while Shi discloses the melt processing of the composition, he does not teach the melt temperature.
Wu discloses composition which also comprises polylactic acid, starch and feldspar. Wu discloses that to melt process these components after mixing the components are melted to a temperature of 165oC (see step 4 of the process).
Although Shi teaches extrusion and Wu compression molding, the same type of components are utilized in both references. Consequently, the same temperature range would have to be utilized to melt the components. This is further evidenced in Shi where the treatment of starch is done at temperatures as high as 130oC [0017]. Additionally, PLA as a rigid and brittle bioplastic has depending on molecular weight has melting point between 150 and 180oC; PHA between 120-180oC ( see PLA vs. PHA: Properties & Processability ).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention that in order to melt process rigid polymers such as PLA one would meet temperature of instant claim 11.
Claims 5, 6, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU (CN 108395868 translation attached) in view of Douard (US 2009/0162683 cited previously).
Discussion of Wu from paragraph 1 of this office action is incorporated here by reference. While Wu teaches use of feldspar, he does not disclose any specific source or type leaving one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize what is already known in the art.
With respect to claim 5, Douard discloses biodegradable composition comprising biodegradable polymers such as PLA [0042] which is combined with starch and feldspar. Specific additives include feldspar and nepheline syenite which is functional equivalent to feldspar, because both are composed of SiO2, Al2O3 and alkali with varying content of silica and alumina. In fact because of higher content of alumina nepheline syenite provides compositions with better mechanical properties (see Nepheline Syenite vs Feldspar: A Buyer's Comparison Guide | Ceramic Minerals).
Wu also discloses lower amount of PLA, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the content of biodegradable polymer will be greatly dependent on the type of article to be made and the extent to which the article has to be biodegradable.
With respect to claim 5, Douard which also discloses PLA, starch and feldspar composition, utilizes PLA in an amount of 50-100 wt% [0052] which content can be a blend of biodegradable polymers [0056]. The composition can have high transparency and heat resistance [0036], melt processible [0092] along with small amounts of polymers such as polyethylene and PVOH [0107] to provide articles such as bottles, containers by thermoforming, blow molding or extrusion [0115], which further meet the limitations of instant claims 14 and 15.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize nepheline Syenite to obtain article having better mechanical properties as well as vary the content of matrix polymer in order to obtain an article based on its intended use or need.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (CN 115322547) in view of WU (CN 108395868 translation attached) in further view of Douard (US 2009/0162683 cited previously).
Discussion of Shi from paragraph 2 of this office action is incorporated here by reference. While Shi teaches use of feldspar, he does not disclose any specific source or type leaving one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize what is already known in the art.
With respect to claim 6, Douard discloses biodegradable composition comprising biodegradable polymers such as PLA [0042] which is combined with starch and feldspar. Specific additives include feldspar and nepheline syenite which is functional equivalent to feldspar, because both are composed of SiO2, Al2O3 and alkali with varying content of silica and alumina. In fact, because of higher content of alumina nepheline syenite provides compositions with better mechanical properties (see Nepheline Syenite vs Feldspar: A Buyer's Comparison Guide | Ceramic Minerals).
Shi also discloses higher amount of PLA; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the content of biodegradable polymer will be greatly dependent on the type of article to be made and the extent to which the article has to be biodegradable.
With respect to claim 5, Douard which also discloses PLA, starch and feldspar composition, utilizes PLA in an amount of 50-100 wt% [0052] which content can be a blend of biodegradable polymers [0056]. The composition can have high transparency and heat resistance [0036], melt processible [0092] along with small amounts of polymers such as polyethylene and PVOH [0107] to provide articles such as bottles, containers by thermoforming, blow molding or extrusion [0115], which further meet the limitations of instant claims 14 and 15.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize nepheline Syenite to obtain article having better mechanical properties as well as vary the content of matrix polymer in order to obtain an article based on its intended use or need.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU (CN 108395868 translation attached) in view of Tangelder (US 2012/0135169 cited previously).
The discussion of Wu from paragraph 1 of this office action is incorporated here by reference. While Wu discloses use of starch, he does not state what type of starch is utilized to make biodegradable articles leaving one of ordinary skill in the art to refer to starches already known.
Tangelder discloses another biodegradable composition which utilizes polymer such as polylactic acid. Other suitable polymers include PBS, PBA, PHB, PBAT and the like [0068-0072].
Starch of Tangelder for use with biodegradable polymers such as PLA is derived from seeds, tubers, roots, grains or grasses [0037].
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize starch of Tangelder in the composition of Wu and thereby obtain the claimed invention. Specifically, Tangelder shows that starchses disclosed therein are suitable for use with polymers such as PLA.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (CN 115322547) in view of WU (CN 108395868 translation attached) in further view of Tangelder (US 2012/0135169 cited previously).
The discussion of Shi from paragraph 2 of this office action is incorporated here by reference. While Shi discloses use of starch, he does not state what type of starch is utilized to make biodegradable articles leaving one of ordinary skill in the art to refer to starches already known.
Tangelder discloses another biodegradable composition which utilizes polymer such as polylactic acid. Other suitable polymers include PBS, PBA, PHB, PBAT and the like [0068-0072].
Starch of Tangelder for use with biodegradable polymers such as PLA is derived from seeds, tubers, roots, grains or grasses [0037].
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize starch of Tangelder in the composition of Shi and thereby obtain the claimed invention. Specifically, Tangelder shows that starches disclosed therein are suitable for use with polymers such as PLA and PHA.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU (CN 108395868 translation attached) in view of Yan (CN 105754309 previously applied)
Discussion of Wu from paragraph 1 of this office action is incorporated here by reference. While Wu teaches process of making composite, the process includes mixing together PLA, PVOH, PE, starch and gum Arabic, then adding calcium stearate and lastly adding minerals. Resulting composition provides composite with all components uniformly distributed.
MPEP 2144.04 IV (c) states selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in absence of new or unexpected results. See Ex Parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959).
In view of the legal precedent stated in MPEP, another process which results in composition having components uniformly distributed throughout the matrix polymer is that of Yan.
Yan explicitly teaches crushing and grinding fillers to a powder first, and while term crushing and grinding is not utilized directly with feldspar, feldspar is a mineral so steps such as crushing the mineral and grinding to obtain powder are viewed as inherent. This would translate into crushing the fillers of Wu (starch and feldspar) followed by combining crushed and ground filler with matrix polymer. The composition results in uniformly distributed filler wherein composition has good mechanical properties [0057-0062] which properties are required by Wu.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention to utilize the steps of Yan to the composition of Wu and thereby obtain claimed invention. Modification to the order of steps still results in uniformly distributed filler within polymeric matrix providing articles with good mechanical properties, the same properties required by Wu. It is important to note than the composition of Yan is not bodily incorporated into the teachings of Wu, and it is utilized to establish an otherwise known order of mixing of the components.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (CN 11532254) in view of WU (CN 108395868 translation attached) and further in view of Yan (CN 105754309 previously applied)
Discussion of Shi from paragraph 2 of this office action is incorporated here by reference. While Shi teaches process of making composite, the process includes treating feldspar and starch separately, specifically by crushing feldspar to obtain powder, followed by mixing starch and feldspar with matrix polymer. Resulting composition provides composite with all components uniformly distributed product formed had good mechanical properties [0127]. Wherein while term grinding is not explicitly recited with respect to starch such is implied when starch is taught to be used in powder form.
MPEP 2144.04 IV (c) states selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in absence of new or unexpected results. See Ex Parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959).
In view of the legal precedent stated in MPEP, another process which results in composition having components uniformly distributed throughout the matrix polymer is that of Yan.
Yan explicitly teaches crushing and grinding fillers to a powder first followed by combining crushed and ground filler with matrix polymer. The composition results in uniformly distributed filler wherein composition has good mechanical properties [0057-0062] which properties are required by Shi.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention to utilize the steps of Yan to the composition of Shi and thereby obtain claimed invention. Modification to the order of steps still results in uniformly distributed filler within polymeric matrix providing articles with good mechanical properties, the same properties required by Shi. It is important to note than the composition of Yan is not bodily incorporated into the teachings of Shi, and it is utilized to establish an otherwise known order of mixing of the components.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 at 5712701046. 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.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 June 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights