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 .
Any new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
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, 5-9, 11-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, 53, 5-9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (WO 2021/017030, cited in IDS filed 11/6/2024) in view of Fishman et al. (US 2019/0256677) and Wiese et al. (US 2005/0175830).
A machine translation of WO2021/017030 is provided with this office action.
Regarding claim 1: Luo is directed to a composite material comprising:
Polylactic acid 5-30 wt%, a biodegradable copolyester 20-70 wt% (equivalent to a biodegradable polymeric matrix);
a plasticizer 5-15 wt%, and
a biodegradable filler 10-50 wt% of coffee grounds.
The biodegradable plasticizer is epoxy soybean oil (MP 0 ˚C), white oil (BP ˜300 ˚C), glycerin (MP 20 ˚C), polyethylene glycol (MP 0-70 ˚C), (equivalent to a biodegradable plasticizer in a liquid state at a temperature between 10-50 °C).
The filler is present in an amount of 10-50 wt% (equivalent to an amount sufficient for retaining the biodegradable plasticizer inside the polymeric matrix). Specifically, articles of tableware and packaging materials, and therefore retain the plasticizer inside the polymeric matrix.
Luo discloses biodegradable polymer of PLA, although doesn’t mention polyvinyl acetate copolymer, at 5-35 wt% from the total weight of the matrix.
Fishman is directed to a composition comprising a mixture of PLA and polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) including a PVAc copolymer ([0056] Fishman). The polyvinyl acetate is present in an amount of 10-40 wt% based on the weight of the composition comprising PLA, PVAc copolymer, and plasticizer, wherein the plasticizer is used in an amount of 1-10 wt% of the composition ([0052] [0059] [0079] Fisher). Hence, the amounts of PVA clearly encompass the claimed amount. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have included PVAc copolymer in the PLA composition of Luo since a combination of PLA and PVAc copolymer improves compatibility of the PLA with the plasticizer such that the plasticizer can be increased without plasticizer migration ([0053] Fishman). This is relevant since both Luo and Fishman generally disclose the same plasticizers ([0063] Fishman). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included PVAc copolymer in claimed amounts in the composition of Luo.
A porosity is not mentioned.
Weiss is directed to a method for producing foamed articles wherein the porosity is 40-90 vol% (abstract Weiss). One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have made a foamed article from the method of Weiss utilizing the composition of Luo to produce articles having porosity that can be loaded with additives for a wide variety of applications ([0005] Weiss). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made a foamed article from the method of Weiss utilizing the composition of Luo to arrive at claim 1 of the present invention.
Regarding claim 3: Polymeric based materials include polylactic acid.
Regarding claim 5: Plasticizers include epoxidized soybean oil, glycerin, polyethylene glycol (polyol), citric acid, and acetylated triethyl citrate (ATBC). (p. 2 Luo).
Regarding claim 6: The biodegradable filler is coffee grounds.
Regarding claim 7: The composition comprises 20-70 wt% of a biodegradable copolyester.
Regarding claim 8: The composition comprises 5-15 wt% plasticizer.
Regarding claim 9: The composition comprises 5-15 wt% plasticizer. While the upper limit of 15 wt% abuts the claimed amount of at least 15 wt%, the claim does recite a wt% basis for the amount, i.e. based on the total weight of the composition or based on 100 parts by weight of the biodegradable matrix. Given the breadth of the amount of “at least 15 wt%”, the claim includes amount different than at least 15 wt% based on the total weight of the composition, as in the case of Luo. In other words, it is reasonable to conclude that Luo includes amounts of at least 15 wt% based on 100 parts of the polylactic acid, for example.
Regarding claim 11: The pore size of 1-100 μm ([0055] Wiese).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (WO 2021/017030) in view of Fishman et al. (US 2019/0256677).
Regarding claim 12: Luo is directed to a product made from a composite material comprising:
Polylactic acid 5-30 wt% and a biodegradable copolyester 20-70 wt% (equivalent to a biodegradable polymeric matrix).
a biodegradable plasticizer 5-15 wt%, and
a biodegradable filler 10-50 wt% of nanometer coffee grounds.
The biodegradable plasticizer is epoxy soybean oil, white oil, glycerin, polyethylene glycol, citric acid (equivalent to a biodegradable plasticizer in a liquid state at a temperature between 10-50 °C).
The filler is present in an amount of 10-50 wt% (equivalent to an amount sufficient for retaining the biodegradable plasticizer inside the polymeric matrix). Specifically, articles of tableware and packaging materials, and therefore retain the plasticizer inside the polymeric matrix.
Luo discloses biodegradable polymer of PLA, although doesn’t mention polyvinyl acetate copolymer, at 5-35 wt% from the total weight of the matrix.
Fishman is directed to a composition comprising a mixture of PLA and polyvinyl acetate (PVAc) including a PVAc copolymer ([0056] Fishman). The polyvinyl acetate is present in an amount of 10-40 wt% based on the weight of the composition comprising PLA, PVAc copolymer, and plasticizer, wherein the plasticizer is used in an amount of 1-10 wt% of the composition ([0052] [0059] [0079] Fisher). Hence, the amounts of PVA clearly encompass the claimed amount. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have included PVAc copolymer in the PLA composition of Luo since a combination of PLA and PVAc copolymer improves compatibility of the PLA with the plasticizer such that the plasticizer can be increased without plasticizer migration ([0053] Fishman). This is relevant since both Luo and Fishman generally disclose the same plasticizers ([0063] Fishman). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included PVAc copolymer in claimed amounts in the composition of Luo.
A porosity of at least 10 vol% is not mentioned. However, the composite composition produced in Luo is substantially identical to the composite composition produced in the instant invention, as discussed above.
Case law holds that the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01(I).
Hence, Luo suggests a product having a porosity within the scope of the claims. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP § 2112.01.
If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant's position; and (2) it would be the Office's position that the application contains inadequate disclosure, since one skilled in the art would not understand how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed reactants, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Regarding claim 13: The working examples comprise injection molding and extrusion.
Regarding claim 14: The water absorption rate of less than 1 wt% is disclosed in the working examples. Given that water is not present in the components used in the working examples, it is reasonable to conclude the product contains less than 10 wt% water.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/2026 (herein “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Fisher (Fishman) teaches away from a PVAc copolymer now recited in the present claims. As evidenced by the WACKER Vinnex 7002 publication, polyvinyl acetate copolymers have Tg values that fall below the Tg required by Fishman.
This argument is not found persuasive. While the WACKER Vinnex 7002 publication lists copolymers Vac-E, the content of ethylene (E) is not mentioned, and therefore it is not possible to equate PVAc-E to the copolymers of Fishman. Fishman teaches a low concentration of comonomer such that the Tg is within the range recited ([0056] Fishman). Hence, it is clear that copolymers are within the scope of Fishman and also satisfy the Tg requirement.
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 ROBERT T BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3514. The examiner can normally be reached Telework M-F 9-5 Pacific Time Zone.
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, Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571) 270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT T BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights