DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claims 1, 23 are supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 7-9, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US 2017/0081442).
Claim(s) 1: Johnson discloses a method for the manufacture of a plasticized polyvinyl alcohol polymer mixture, the method comprising the steps of: introducing a polyvinyl alcohol polymer comprising at least 98 wt % polyvinyl alcohol or a blend of the polymer into a mixing reactor; wherein the mixing reactor comprises a blending chamber having a primary inlet, a primary outlet and at least two inter-engaging components extending between the primary inlet and primary outlet, the components being arranged to apply a shearing force to the polymer while the polymer is conveyed by the components from the inlet through a reaction zone to the outlet; one or more secondary inlets located downstream from the primary inlet for introducing reactants comprising a processing agent and a plasticizer to the chamber to form a reaction mixture; wherein the blending chamber comprises a plurality of heated regions arranged so that the mixture is subjected to a controlled temperature profile; a secondary outlet located between the reaction zone and primary outlet arranged to allow removal of processing agent from the chamber; reacting a reaction mixture comprising the processing agent, plasticizer and polymer in the reaction zone to form plasticized polymer; wherein when the processing agent is water the amounts of water is from 3 wt % to 18 wt %; and allowing the plasticized polymer to pass from the primary outlet (abstract). The plasticizer can be pentaerythritol (example 2).
Johnson teaches exemplary plasticizers are mannitol, erythritol, pentaerythritol, dipentaerythritol, trimethylolpropane and mixtures thereof [0024]. Johnson further exemplary a mixture of two plasticizers including dipentaerythritol (example 4). There are total 10 possible combinations of choosing 2 items from a set of 5 items.
The degree of hydrolysis is 98% or greater [0020]. Case law holds that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 7-8: Johnson teaches highly hydrolyzed (greater than 98%) polyvinyl acetate decomposes before its melting point of about 250°C is reached. This makes melt processing difficult and for this reason the highly hydrolyzed polymer is generally processed as an aqueous solution. Partially hydrolyzed polyvinyl acetate is readily melt processed. For example, 80% hydrolyzed polyvinyl acetate can be more readily extruded or converted into film by blow moulding than highly hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol. In general efficient manufacture of plasticized polyvinyl alcohols with a high degree of hydrolysis is not easy to achieve [0003-0004]. The invention of Johnson relates to a process for manufacture of a plasticized polyvinyl alcohol polymer mixture in a suitable physical form for processing into film or other extruded products [0001, 0031].
Johnson does not explicitly teach a polyvinyl alcohol with a degree of hydrolysis of lower than 98%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to recognize that the method of Johnson, which is suitable for processing plasticized polyvinyl alcohols with a high degree of hydrolysis, can be used to process plasticized polyvinyl alcohols with a relatively lower degree of hydrolysis because processing a plasticized PVA with lower degree of hydrolysis is easier than processing a plasticized PVA with higher degree of hydrolysis.
Claim 9: Johnson teaches the blend of PVA comprises a low viscosity polymer and a high viscosity polymer (0095, table 1). For two polymers, they have either same degree of hydrolysis or different degree of hydrolysis.
Claim 23: Johnson teaches the amount of plasticizer is 5-20wt% [0091].
When faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that “[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Claim 24: the amounts of water is from 3 wt % to 18 wt %.
Claim 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US 2017/0081442) in view of Lee (WO99/54400).
Johnson discloses the limitation of claim 1, as discussed above. Johnson further teaches the amount of PVA is 87-92 wt% [0090].
Johnson does not teach a reactive stabilizer like claimed.
However, Lee discloses a processing aid, such as calcium stearate or stearic acid, can keep polyvinyl alcohol from yellowing, the amount of the processing aid is 1-10wt% based on 100% by weight of the PVA (pages 9, 12), which is about 0.87-9.2 wt% for Johnson’s composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include processing aid like claimed to keep PVA from yellowing. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on 07/06/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 20184345.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that a lower degree hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol can be process by a blow molding process which is distinct from the process disclosed in the reference, it is noted that the invention of Johnson relates to a process for manufacture of a plasticized polyvinyl alcohol polymer mixture in a suitable physical form which can be processed into film by a blow molding process.
In response to applicant's argument that Johnson provides no teaching or motivation to select the claimed combination of mannitol and dipentaerythritol, it is noted that Johnson teaches exemplary plasticizers are mannitol, erythritol, pentaerythritol, dipentaerythritol, trimethylolpropane and mixtures thereof [0024]. Johnson further exemplary a mixture of two plasticizers including dipentaerythritol (example 4). There are total 10 possible combinations of choosing 2 items from a set of 5 items. It has been held that a prior art genus containing only 20 compounds and a limited number of variations in the generic chemical formula inherently anticipated a claimed species within the genus because “one skilled in [the] art would... envisage each member ” of the genus. In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, 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.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763