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. The previous restriction requirement is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 13-15, and 17-19 are currently pending. Claim Objections Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 recites “said polymer”. The claim should instead read “said at least one polymer”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Analysis Summary of Claim 1: A plasticized cellulose ester composition, said composition comprising (a) at least one cellulose ester ; and a plasticizer system , said plasticizer system comprising epoxidized bio-derived oil in an amount of from 2% to 32% by weight of the plasticizer system on the total weight of said plasticizer system, wherein the plasticizer system further comprises triethylene glycol bis (2-ethyl hexanoate). 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. Claim s 1-2, 4-11, and 13-15, and 17-19 FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Compton et al. (WO 2018017652) . Regarding claim 1, Compton et al. disclose a plasticized cellulose composition Example 10 comprising cellulose acetate propi on ate, triet h ylene glycol bis (2-ethyl hexanoate) (TEG-EH as evidenced by the data sheet provided ), and 2% of Kane-Ace PA-20 as a proce ssing aid (Table 4). Compton et al. and the instant claims differ in that Example 10 does not comprise an epoxidized bio-derived oil in the amount recited. However, Compton et al. teach epoxidized soybean oil may be used (page 14) . Therefore , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the acrylic processing aid used in Example 10 with the epoxidized soybean oil since Compton et al. teach both are suitable as a processing aid and thereby equivalent to 8 wt% of the plasticizer system and lying with the claimed range of 2% to 32% by weight of the plasticizer system. Regarding claim 2, Compton et al. disclose the amount of plasticizer and processing aid is 25 wt% and thereby lying within the claimed range of 10% to 35% by weight of the plasticizer system. Regarding claim 4, Compton et al. disclose wax is present in Example 10. Compton et al. disclose wax is used as a roll release agent, thereby reading on the instant claim. Regarding claim 5, Compton et al. disclose the cellulose ester is cellulose acetate propionate, thereby reading on the instant claim. Regarding claim 6, Compton et al. do not teach an additional cellulose ester is present in Example 9. However, Compton et al. teach that multiple cellulose esters such as cellulose acetate butyrate and cellulose acetate propionate may be present in the composition (page 6 , see also claim 6 and page 74 ). Therefore , Compton et al. teach the combination of one or more cellulose esters with “sufficient specificity” that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed combination. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” combination of one or more cellulose esters as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. , 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Regarding claim 7, Compton et al. teach epoxidized soybean oil may be added as discussed in the rejection for claim 1. Regarding claim 8, Compton et al. is silent on the haze of example 10 . In view of the substantially identical plasticized cellulose ester composition of Compton et al. , the plasticized cellulose ester composition of Compton et al will possess the claimed properties because haze is an expected property . Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).) Regarding claim 9, Compton et al. is silent on the composition of Example 10 is formed into a calendered article. However, Compton et al. teach the composition is used for forming calendared articles (claim 1 and 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as taught by Compton et al. to use the composition of Example 10 to form a calendered article . Regarding claim 10 and 15, Compton et al. disclose a plasticized cellulose composition Example 10 comprising cellulose acetate propi on ate, triet h ylene glycol bis (2-ethyl hexanoate) (TEG-EH), and 2% of Kane-Ace PA-20 as a processing aid (Table 4) . Compton et al. and the instant claims differ in that Example 10 does not comprise an epoxidized bio-derived oil in the amount recited. However, Compton et al. teach epoxidized soybean oil may be used as a processing aid (page 14) , thereby reading on instant claim 10 and 15 . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the acrylic processing aid used in Example 10 with the epoxidized soybean oil since Compton et al. teach both are suitable as a processing aid s and thereby equivalent to 8 wt% of the plasticizer system and lying with the claimed range of 2% to 32% by weight of the plasticizer system. Compton et al. teach the composition is used to form an article such as films use for flooring (page 74-75), thereby reading on the instant claim. Regarding claim 11, Compton et al. disclose the amount of plasticizer and processing aid is 25 wt% and thereby lying within the claimed range of 10% to 35% by weight of the plasticizer system. Regarding claim 13, Compton et al. disclose the cellulose ester is cellulose acetate propionate, thereby reading on the instant claim. Regarding claim 14, Compton et al. do not teach an additional cellulose ester is present in Example 9. However, Compton et al. teach that multiple cellulose esters such as cellulose acetate butyrate and cellulose acetate propionate may be present in the composition (page 6, see also claim 6 and page 74 ). Therefore, Compton et al. teach the combination of one or more cellulose esters with “sufficient specificity” that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed combination. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” combination of one or more cellulose esters as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. , 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Regarding claim 17, Compton et al. disclose a calendered article which is a film or sheet comprising cellulose ester, 0 wt% to about 40.0 wt% plasticizer, 0.1 wt% to about 2.0 wt% role release agent, about 0 wt% to about 6.0 wt% processing based on the total composition, equivalent to 52 wt% to 99.9 wt% of cellulose ester and thereby overlapping the claimed range (claim 1 and 10) . Compton et al. and the instant claim differ in that Compton et al. do not teach the composition comprises triethylene glycol bis (2-ethyl hexanoate) in a single embodiment. However, Compton et al. teach the plasticizer can be TEG-EH ( page 11, Table 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use triethylene glycol bis (2-ethyl hexanoate) as a plasticizer since Compton et al. teach with “sufficient specificity” that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed combination. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” to add triethylene glycol bis (2-ethyl hexanoate) as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. , 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Regarding claim 18, Compton et al. teach the composition comprises cellulose ester. Regarding claim 19, Compton et al. do not teach the composition and the article formed comprises an epoxidized bio-derived oil. However, Compton et al. teach epoxidized soybean oil may be added as a processing aid (page 13- 14), thereby reading on the instant claim. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add epoxidized soybean oil to the composition and the article as taught by Compton et al. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11905394. The claims are both related to cellulose ester composition comprising a cellulose ester, triethylene glycol bis-2-ethyl hexanoate , and epoxidized soy bean oil in overlapping amounts. Conclusio n Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANDREA WU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0342 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M F 8 - 5 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Joseph Del Sole can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 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. /ANDREA WU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1763 /JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763