DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 12, 14-15, 18, 20, 27-30, 37, 45-46 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-2, 20, 29-30, 37 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 12, 14-15, 18, 27-28, 45-46 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim(s) 4-9, 11, 13, 16-17, 19, 21-26, 31-36, 38-44, 47 is/are cancelled by Applicant.
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 .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Election of Species
Applicant’s election of: Species (a)(i); Species (b)(iii); Species (c)(i); in the reply filed on 01/28/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 3, 10, 12, 14-15, 18, 27-28, 45-46 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/31/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 contains abbreviations (i.e., PBAT, PBSA, PBS, PLA, PCL). For clarity, the first occurrence of abbreviations in the claims should be accompanied by the corresponding full definition of said abbreviation -- for example, “polylactic acid (PLA)”, etc.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 29-30, 37 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 29 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the phrase “a sealing sheet having a core layer” requires:
(i) the presence of an additional “sealing sheet having a core layer” element in addition to the previously recited “sealing sheet comprising a sealing sheet outer layer and a sealing sheet second outer layer” of claim 1;
or
(ii) the presence of an additional “core layer” within the previously recited “sealing sheet comprising a sealing sheet outer layer and a sealing sheet second outer layer” of claim 1, resulting in the previously recited “sealing sheet” of claim 1 being a three-layer structure.
Claim 37 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear whether the phrase “a second outer layer” requires:
(i) the presence of an additional “second outer layer” element with the recited composition in the previously recited “sealing sheet comprising a sealing sheet outer layer and a sealing sheet second outer layer” of claim 1 (resulting in a three-layer sealing sheet structure);
or
(ii) that the previously recited “second outer layer” of claim 1 has the recited composition (resulting in a two-layer sealing sheet structure).
Note: Claims 29-30 may be subject to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 after the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, (regarding the structure of the “biodegradable laminated structure”) are resolved.
Claim 30 are dependent on one or more of the above claims and therefore incorporate the above-described indefinite subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are 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.
The limitation in claim 20 regarding the composition of the tie layer is already fully present in the parent claim 1.
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 § 102 (AIA )
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) in the previous Office Action mailed 10/22/2025 have been withdrawn in view of the Claim Amendments filed 10/22/2025
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
NEVALAINEN ET AL (US 2017/0008226),
in view of MENALDA ET AL (US 2012/0156478),
and in view of YAMADA ET AL (US 2001/0051239).
NEVALAINEN ET AL ‘226 disclose biodegradable laminates, where said laminates comprise:
• a fibrous substrate (e.g., paper or cardboard);
• an innermost polymeric layer exhibiting adhesion to the fibrous substrate (corresponding to the recited “tie layer”) comprising or consisting of biodegradable polyester (e.g., PBAT) (corresponding to the recited “tie layer comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of... 100wt% PBAT”);
• a middle polymeric layer comprising polylactide (PLA) (corresponding to the recited “sealing sheet second outer layer”) comprising or consisting of biodegradable polyester (e.g., PBAT);
• an outermost polymeric heat-sealing layer (corresponding to the recited “sealing sheet outer layer” comprising a blend of:
(i) polylactide (PLA); and
(ii) other biodegradable polyester (e.g., but not limited to, polybutylene succinate (PBS), etc.) (corresponding to the recited “sealing sheet comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of PBSA, PBS, PBAT,...”);
wherein the polymeric layers can be applied to the fibrous substrate by lamination or extrusion. (entire document, e.g., paragraph 0001, 0005, 0019-0020, 0029, etc.)
MENALDA ET AL ‘478 discloses that it is well known in the art to apply one or more polymeric layers to a paper-based substrate using common lamination methods (e.g., extrusion lamination, coextrusion lamination, etc.) in order to form packaging laminates. (paragraph 0032-0033, 0041, etc.)
YAMADA ET AL ‘239 discloses that it is well known in the art to form polymer / paper packaging laminates by: coextruding multiple polymeric layers (116); and laminating the coextruded polymeric layers (119) to a paper-based substrate (105); wherein the innermost polymeric layer facing the paper-based substrate provides adhesion to the paper-based substrate. (Figure 10, etc.; paragraph 0045-0049, 0144, 0146, 0150-0151, 0157-0158, 0161, etc.)
Regarding claim 1-2, 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce biodegradable laminates containing an adhesion (i.e., tie) layer containing PBAT between a fibrous substrate and an outer heat-sealing layer in order to produce useful delamination-resistant biodegradable materials (e.g., packaging, etc.) as disclosed in NEVALAINEN ET AL ‘226.
Further regarding claim 1, in the phrase “said tie layer comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of 100wt% PBAT”, the open term “comprises” allows for any amount(s) of any material(s) as long as the “tie layer” contains PBAT in any amount. The “100wt%” (with respect to PBAT) limits the composition of the PBAT material itself, but does not limit the composition of the “tie layer” as a whole. Therefore, claims 1-2, 20 do not require a “tie layer” which as a whole consists of 100 wt% PBAT.
Further regarding claim 1, in the phrase “said sealing sheet outer layer comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of PBSA, PBS, PBAT, a mixture of from 50 wt% to 80 wt% PLA with from 20 wt% to 50 wt% PCL; and a mixture of from 50 wt% to 85 wt% PBSA with from 15 wt% to 50 wt% PLA”, the open term “comprises” allows for any amount(s) of any material(s) as long as the “sealing sheet outer layer” contains one of the recited “polymer” materials in any amount. The recited weight percentages (with respect to PLA, PCL, PBSA) limit the composition of the “polymer” material itself, but does not limit the composition of the “sealing sheet outer layer” as a whole.
Further regarding claim 1, the recited use of extrusion and lamination to form the recited biodegradable laminated structure is a product-by-process limitation and is not further limiting in as so far as the structure of the product is concerned. "[E]even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." [emphasis added] In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. Once a product appearing substantially identical is found, the burden shifts to applicant to show a unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally and/or alternatively, further regarding claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilize a common lamination method such as (co)extrusion lamination (as suggested in MENALDA ET AL ‘478) (e.g., (co)extrusion of polymeric layers, followed by lamination of the (co)extruded polymeric layers to a paper-based substrate, as suggested in YAMADA ET AL ‘239) to apply: (i) the innermost polymeric layer (corresponding to the recited “tie layer”); (ii) the middle polymeric layer (corresponding to the recited “sealing sheet second outer layer”); and (iii) the outermost polymeric heat-sealing layer; of NEVALAINEN ET AL ‘226 to the fibrous substrate to form the biodegradable laminates of NEVALAINEN ET AL ‘226.
* * *
Claim(s) 1-2, 20, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
NEVALAINEN ET AL (US 2015/0284133),
in view of MENALDA ET AL (US 2012/0156478),
and in view of YAMADA ET AL (US 2001/0051239).
NEVALAINEN ET AL ‘133 disclose sealable biodegradable laminates, where said laminates comprise:
• a fibrous substrate (e.g., paper or cardboard);
• an inner coating layer (corresponding to the recited “tie layer”) containing:
(i) polylactide (PLA); and
(ii) other biodegradable polyester (e.g., polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT); etc.) (corresponding to the recited “tie layer comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of 100wt% PBAT”);
wherein the inner coating layer provides adhesion between the fibrous substrate and other coating layers;
• a middle coating layer (corresponding to the recited “sealing sheet second outer layer”) comprising PLA;
• a sealable outer coating layer (corresponding to the recited “sealing sheet outer layer”) comprising a blend of:
(i) 5-80 wt% polylactide (PLA); and
(ii) 20-95 wt% other biodegradable polyester (e.g., polybutylene succinate (PBS) or derivative thereof, such as polybutylene succinate adipate (PBSA); etc.) (corresponding to the recited “sealing sheet outer layer comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of PBSA, PBS, PBAT...”);
wherein the biodegradable laminates are formed by:
• coextruding the inner coating layer (corresponding to the recited “tie layer”), the middle coating layer (corresponding to the recited “sealing sheet second outer layer”), and the sealable outer coating layer (corresponding to the recited “extrusion of said sealing sheet”);
• adhering the coextruded coating layers (corresponding to the recited “extrusion of said sealing sheet”) to the fibrous substrate (corresponding to the recited “lamination to the substrate”), wherein the inner coating layer (corresponding to the recited “tie layer”) bonds the coextruded coating layers (corresponding to the recited “said sealing sheet”) to the fibrous substrate (corresponding to the recited “said sealing sheet, followed by lamination to said substrate, comprising use of said tie layer”).
(entire document, e.g., Figure 6(c), etc.; paragraph 0002-0003, 0013, 0024, 0029, 0046, 0048, 0053, 0056, 0063, 0068, 0071, etc.)
MENALDA ET AL ‘478 discloses that it is well known in the art to apply one or more polymeric layers to a paper-based substrate using common lamination methods (e.g., extrusion lamination, coextrusion lamination, etc.) in order to form packaging laminates. (paragraph 0032-0033, 0041, etc.)
YAMADA ET AL ‘239 discloses that it is well known in the art to form polymer / paper packaging laminates by: coextruding multiple polymeric layers (116); and laminating the coextruded polymeric layers (119) to a paper-based substrate (105); wherein the innermost polymeric layer facing the paper-based substrate provides adhesion to the paper-based substrate. (Figure 10, etc.; paragraph 0045-0049, 0144, 0146, 0150-0151, 0157-0158, 0161, etc.)
Regarding claim 1-2, 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce biodegradable laminates containing an adhesion-providing inner coating layer containing PBAT (corresponding to the recited “tie layer”) between a fibrous substrate and additional coating layers (corresponding to the recited “sealing sheet” of claim 1) in order to produce useful delamination-resistant biodegradable materials (e.g., packaging, etc.) as disclosed in NEVALAINEN ET AL ‘133.
Further regarding claim 1, in the phrase “said tie layer comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of 100wt% PBAT”, the open term “comprises” allows for any amount(s) of any material(s) as long as the “tie layer” contains PBAT in any amount. The “100wt%” (with respect to PBAT) only limits the composition of the PBAT material itself, but does not limit the composition of the “tie layer” as a whole. Therefore, claims 1-2, 20 do not require a “tie layer” which as a whole consists of 100 wt% PBAT.
Further regarding claim 1, in the phrase “said sealing sheet outer layer comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of PBSA, PBS, PBAT, a mixture of from 50 wt% to 80 wt% PLA with from 20 wt% to 50 wt% PCL; and a mixture of from 50 wt% to 85 wt% PBSA with from 15 wt% to 50 wt% PLA”, the open term “comprises” allows for any amount(s) of any material(s) as long as the “sealing sheet outer layer” contains one of the recited “polymer” materials in any amount. The recited weight percentages (with respect to PLA, PCL, PBSA) limit the composition of the “polymer” material itself, but does not limit the composition of the “sealing sheet outer layer” as a whole.
Further regarding claim 1, the recited use of extrusion and lamination to form the recited biodegradable laminated structure is a product-by-process limitation and is not further limiting in as so far as the structure of the product is concerned. "[E]even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." [emphasis added] In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. Once a product appearing substantially identical is found, the burden shifts to applicant to show a unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally and/or alternatively, further regarding claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized a common lamination method such as (co)extrusion lamination (as suggested in MENALDA ET AL ‘478) (e.g., (co)extrusion of polymeric layers, followed by lamination of the (co)extruded polymeric layers to a paper-based substrate, as suggested in YAMADA ET AL ‘239) to:
(a) coextrude (i) the innermost coating layer (corresponding to the recited “tie layer”); (ii) the middle polymeric layer (corresponding to the recited “sealing sheet second outer layer”); and (iii) the outermost polymeric heat-sealing layer; of NEVALAINEN ET AL ‘133; to form coextruded coating layers (corresponding to the recited “extrusion of said sealing sheet”);
(b) adhering (corresponding to the recited “lamination”) the coextruded coating layers (corresponding to the recited “sealing sheet”) to the fibrous substrate via the adhesion-providing innermost coating layer (corresponding to the recited “tie layer”) (corresponding to the recited “said sealing sheet, followed by lamination to said substrate, comprising use of said tie layer”) to form the biodegradable laminates of NEVALAINEN ET AL ‘133.
Regarding claim 37, in the phrase “second outer layer comprising a polymer selected from the group consisting of PBSA, PBS, PBAT and a mixture of PCL with PLA and combinations thereof.”, the open term “comprising” allows for any amount(s) of any material(s) as long as the “second outer layer” contains one of the recited “polymer” materials in any amount. The above phrase limits the composition of the “polymer” material itself, but does not limit the composition of the “second outer layer” as a whole.
Regarding claim 37, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated other known biodegradable polyesters (e.g., polycaprolactone (PCL); PBSA, PBS, PBAT) in the middle coating layer (corresponding to the recited “second outer layer” of claim 37) of NEVALAINEN ET AL ‘133 in order to modify or optimize performance properties (e.g., biodegradation characteristics, mechanical properties, melt processing characteristics, etc.) for specific applications.
Further regarding claim 37, it is well known in the art that “polylactic acid” and “polylactide” are commonly used interchangeably for polymers derived from lactic acid and/or its derivatives (e.g., lactides), and both terms commonly utilize the same abbreviation (PLA).
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
NEVALAINEN ET AL (US 2015/0284133), in view of MENALDA ET AL (US 2012/0156478), and in view of YAMADA ET AL (US 2001/0051239),
as applied to claims 1-2, 20, 37 above,
and further in view of:
• WNUK ET AL (US 5,939,467), or
• MOHANTY ET AL (US 2010/0076099).
WNUK ET AL ‘467 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize blends of different biodegradable polymers (e.g., PLA, PCL, PBS, PBSA, etc.) with different physical properties and different performance deficiencies or limitations (e.g., moisture sensitivity; thermal sensitivity; difficulty in melt processing; mechanical limitations; sensitivity to hydrolytic cleaving; etc.) in order to compensate for the weaknesses of the individual biodegradable polymer and thereby produce biodegradable polymer compositions which have good, uniform physical properties and/or improved melt processing properties and/or tailored biodegradation or composting properties. (entire document, e.g., line 9-58, col. 1; line 26-43, col. 2; line 8-38, col. 3; line 7, col. 7 to line 18, col. 8; line 1-55, col. 12; line 48-64, col. 16; line 28-62, col. 20; line 20, col. 21 to line 5, col. 22; line 6-38, col. 24; etc.)
MOHANTY ET AL ‘099 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize blends comprising: (a) polylactic acid (PLA); and (b) polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT); in weight ratios of PLA to PBAT of 70:30 to 30:70 as layers in biodegradable, eco-friendly packaging materials in order to provide said packaging materials with improved barrier properties in combination with advantageous balance of stiffness and toughness. (paragraph 0020-0021, 0041, 0072-0085, etc.)
Regarding claim 37, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate effective amounts of other known biodegradable polyesters (e.g., polycaprolactone (PCL); PBSA, PBS, PBAT) in the PLA-based middle coating layer (corresponding to the recited “second outer layer” of claim 37) of NEVALAINEN ET AL ‘133 in order to modify or optimize performance properties (e.g., biodegradation characteristics, mechanical properties, melt processing characteristics, etc.) for specific applications (as suggested WNUK ET AL ‘467) and/or improved barrier properties in combination with advantageous balance of stiffness and toughness (as suggested in MOHANTY ET AL ‘099)
Regarding claim 37, in the phrase “second outer layer comprising a polymer selected from the group consisting of PBSA, PBS, PBAT and a mixture of PCL with PLA and combinations thereof.”, the open term “comprising” allows for any amount(s) of any material(s) as long as the “second outer layer” contains one of the recited “polymer” materials in any amount. The above phrase limits the composition of the “polymer” material itself, but does not limit the composition of the “second outer layer” as a whole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues that NEVALAINEN ET AL ‘226 and NEVALAINEN ET AL ‘133 fail to disclose or suggest a tie layer that consists of 100 wt% PBAT. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a tie layer which, as a whole, consists of 100 wt% PBAT; the use of PBAT alone as a tie layer; etc.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 1, in the phrase “said tie layer comprises a polymer selected from the group consisting of 100wt% PBAT”, the open term “comprises” allows for any amount(s) of any material(s) as long as the “tie layer” contains PBAT in any amount. The “100wt%” (with respect to PBAT) only limits the composition of the PBAT material itself, but does not limit the composition of the “tie layer” as a whole. Therefore, claims 1-2, 20 do not require a “tie layer” which as a whole consists of 100 wt% PBAT.
(B) Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly added process limitation “wherein said structure is prepared by extrusion of said sealing sheet, followed by lamination to said substrate, comprising use of said tie layer” have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Claim Amendments filed 10/22/2025.
Additionally, the recited use of extrusion and lamination to form the recited biodegradable laminated structure is a product-by-process limitation and is not further limiting in as so far as the structure of the product is concerned. "[E]even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." [emphasis added] In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. Once a product appearing substantially identical is found, the burden shifts to applicant to show a unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WONG ET AL (US 2015/0337094) disclose biodegradable films comprising PBAT-containing or PBS(A)-containing blends.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
November 29, 2025
/Vivian Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787