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 .
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 47 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 47 recites the limitation "the inorganic substance" in claim 47. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 48-51 are 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. When components are introduced in claim 35 with the phrase “at least one” preceding them, any further recitation of the components in dependent claims must have the phrase “at least one” preceding them.
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) 35-43 and 47-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (JP 2011-201946A).
Regarding claims 35-38, 47 and 50-51: Nagano et al. teach a composition comprising polylactic acid and 0.2 parts by weight of a stabilizing agent [Examples]; the stabilizing agent comprising of sodium sulfite and 9,10-dihydro-9-oxa-10-phosphaphenathrene-10-oxide [Examples; Claims]. Nagano et al. teach that PEP-8: Distearyl pentaerythritol diphosphite can be used interchangeably with 9,10-dihydro-9-oxa-10-phosphaphenathrene-10-oxide [Examples; Table 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mixture of sodium sulfite and Distearyl pentaerythritol diphosphite as the stabilizer in Nagano et al.
Regarding claims 39-40, 42 and 43: Nagano et al. teach the claimed additives, and it would have been obvious to add one of the additives of Nagano et al. for its intended purpose [0118]. It would have been obvious to optimize the amount of additive within the claimed amount. For example, it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of pigment for the desired color. It is a result effective variable. For claim 43, Nagano et al. teach the claimed amount of polylactic acid and additive composition [Examples].
Regarding claim 41: Nagano et al. teach 0 parts by weight of plasticizer, filler and/or reinforcing material [Examples].
Regarding claims 48-49: The inorganic sulfite is selected from the options of claim 35.
Regarding claim 52: When using a mixture of stabilizers, the skilled artisan would immediately envisage a 1:1 mixture.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has alleged that Nagano et al. fail to teach the claimed phosphorus compound. This is not persuasive because Nagano et al. teach PEP-8: Distearyl pentaerythritol diphosphate [Examples; Table 1]. Furthermore, Nagano et al. teach sodium sulfite [Claims].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN USELDING whose telephone number is (571)270-5463. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am to 6:30pm.
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.
/JOHN E USELDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights