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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 8, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the first cooled PHA material is pulled unrestrained through the second chamber” which is not originally disclosed and thus is new matter. The original specification does not disclose such “unrestrained” limitations. Note that there would be restraint in the chamber from at least the water therein and gravity.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the extruded PHA material is pulled unrestrained through the first chamber” which is not originally disclosed and thus is new matter. The original specification does not disclose such “unrestrained” limitations. Note that there would be restraint in the chamber from at least the water therein and gravity.
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 11-12 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.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the first cooled PHA material is pulled unrestrained through the second chamber” which is indefinite. The first cooled PHA material is pulled unrestrained from what? Note that there would be restraint in the chamber from at least the water therein and gravity.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the extruded PHA material is pulled unrestrained through the first chamber” which is indefinite. The extruded PHA material is pulled unrestrained from what? Note that there would be restraint in the chamber from at least the water therein and gravity.
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.
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) 1-7 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French (US
4,575,326) in view of Loe et al. (US 4,750,873), Noda et al. (US 2003/0217648) and Bessemer et al. (US 6,620,354).
French (US 4,575,326) discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a duct (tube) 10 (fig. 4; col. 4,
lines 65-66, "empty duct"; ducts (tubes) are capable of being used as drinking straws), the apparatus comprising:
a two-stage water bath (figs. 3-4; col. 5, line 28, to col. 7, line 8) comprising a housing 38 and a
wall (not labeled but shown in fig. 4 holding a gasket 75) disposed within the housing 38, wherein the
wall and the housing 38 cooperate to define a first chamber 65 within the housing 38 and a second
chamber 74 within the housing 38, wherein the wall is disposed between the first chamber 65 and the
second chamber 74, wherein the wall separates the first chamber 65 and the second chamber 74 (fig. 4);
wherein the first chamber 65 contains water having a first temperature and the second chamber
74 contains water having a second temperature (col. 6, lines 36-64, the water is a cooling water and thus
has a temperature capable of cooling the extrudate);
wherein the first chamber 65 receives a continuous tubular stream of extruded material from an
extruder die 32 (fig. 4), wherein the extruded material is cooled via the water contained in the first
chamber to produce first cooled material, wherein the second chamber 74 receives the first cooled
material from the first chamber 65, and wherein the first cooled material is further cooled via the water
contained in the second chamber to produce a continuous tubular stream of second cooled material (fig.
3-4, col. 6, lines 10-64; cooling water fills the tank so as to fully submerse and cool the extruded
material; the extruded material is cooled in the first chamber 65, and then cooled again in the second
chamber 74); and
wherein the water in the second chamber 74 further cools the first cooled material over a predefined period of time sufficiently to solidify the material (as shown in fig. 4, the first cooled material will inherently be in the second chamber 74 for a predefined period of time depending upon the rate of travel of the first cooled material through the second chamber 74; col. 6, lines 27-29, cooling solidifies the molten resin).
However, French 4,575,326) does not disclose a polyhydroxyalkanoate drink straw, the
first temperature of the first chamber water being different from the second temperature of the second
chamber water, the continuous tubular stream of extruded material being pulled in the first chamber, the first cooled material being pulled into the second chamber, the apparatus wherein the extruded PHA material is pulled through the first chamber at a rate that allows for the extruded PHA material to remain in the first chamber for a first predefined period of time within a range of one to three seconds to produce the first cooled PHA material, OR wherein the first cooled PHA material is pulled through the second chamber at a rate that allows for the first cooled PHA material to remain in the second chamber for a second predefined period of time of one to three seconds to produce the second cooled PHA material, as recited by claim 1.
Noda et al. (US 2003/0217648) discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a
polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) drink straw including a tube die for extruding a tube and a water bath for
cooling the extruded tube [0093], [0107], [0155]-[0156].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to modify the duct (tube)/drinking straws of French (US 4,575,326) to be polyhydroxyalkanoate
(PHA) tubes/drink straws because such a modification is known in the art, as disclosed by Noda et al. (US
2003/0217648), and would enable production of PHA tubes/drink straws.
Loe et al. (US 4,750,873) disclose a two-stage water cooling chamber for use in apparatus for
manufacturing a tubular object (i.e., a duct) 2 (fig. 1, col. 3, lines 26-44), the water cooling chamber
comprising: a housing 4; a wall (not labeled but shown in fig. 1 between parts 5a and 8) disposed within
the housing 4, wherein the wall and the housing 4 cooperate to define a first chamber 5 within the
housing 4 and a second chamber 8 within the housing 4, wherein the first chamber 5 contains water
having a first temperature and is configured to receive extruded material 2 from an extruder 1, and
wherein the second chamber 8 contains water having a second temperature that is different from the
first temperature and wherein the second chamber 8 is configured to receive first cooled material from
the first chamber 5 and to produce second cooled material (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 33-43; water in first
chamber 5 is 60 degrees C, and water in second chamber 9 is 20 degrees C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the water temperatures of the first and second chambers of French (US 4,575,326) to be different, as disclosed by Loe et al. (US 4,750,873), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the water temperatures of the first and second chambers known to be operable in the art for cooling an extruded material. As to the combination of French and Loe et al., both disclose a two stage water cooling apparatus for an extrudate. As is known in the art, water cooling of an extrudate can be from a water bath or from a water sprayer, as respectively recited by French and Loe et al. It would be well within an artisan of ordinary skill that the amount of cooling of the extrudate is dependent upon the cooling temperature of the cooling water. French discloses a two-stage water bath including a first and second chamber including cooling water contained therein, as mentioned above. While Loe et al. does not disclose a two-stage water bath, Loe et al. does disclose a two-stage water cooling chamber including a first and second chamber including water (from sprayers) contained therein, wherein the water temperature in the chambers are different to obtain different cooling of the extrudate between the chambers. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify the temperature of the cooling water in the first and second chambers of French to be different because such a modification is known in the art, namely the two stage extrudate cooling art, as disclosed by Loe et al., and would enable the two stages of French to have different cooling of the extrudate between the chambers with a reasonable expectation of success. As is known in the art (two stage water cooling of extrudate), water cooling of an extrudate can be from a water bath or from a water sprayer, as respectively recited by French and Loe et al., as mentioned above.
Bessemer et al. (US 6,620,354) disclose apparatus for making hollow extruded products (i.e., ducts/tubes; col. 4, lines 12-15) including a combined vacuum/cooling chamber, wherein coolant is provided in a vacuum chamber (col. 4, lines 37-40; col. 4, lines 15-17, vacuum chamber provides support to a hollow extrudate until it is sufficiently cooled to a stable temperature; col. 1, lines 19-25, cooling chamber cools the hollow extrudate), wherein a cooling chamber can be partially or completely filled with coolant or can have spray nozzles (col. 1, lines 36-42), wherein the cooling processes of the vacuum chamber and the cooling chamber can be controlled (col. 1, lines 42-46); wherein the cooling temperature can be adjusted up and down to control the extrudate temperature to achieve a desired final cooling temperature of the extrudate (col. 2, line 43, to col. 3, line 24; col. 4, line 53, to col. 5, line 3); wherein there can be multiple cooling chambers 503-515 each including a temperature sensor 600-612 for controlling the temperature in each cooling chamber (fig. 9; col. 10, line 65, to col. 11, line 27); wherein a puller mechanism 27 pulls the extrudate downstream after being extruded at a rate past further processing equipment, such as vacuum and cooling equipment, for the extruded duct/tube (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 17-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the apparatus with a puller mechanism, as disclosed by Bessemer et al. (US6,620,354), because such a modification is known in the art and would enable pulling of the extrudate through duct/tube processing equipment (such as the water bath) at a rate downstream of being extruded. Such a puller mechanism would pull the continuous tubular stream of extruded material into and through the first chamber and would pull the first cooled material into and through the second chamber. Note that such a puller mechanism would pull the extruded material through the first chamber at a rate that allows for the extruded material to remain in the first chamber for a first predefined period of time to produce the first cooled material, and would pull the first cooled material through the second chamber at a rate that allows for the first cooled material to remain in the second chamber for a second predefined period of time to produce the second cooled material. As to the specifically claimed times (one to three seconds), such times would have been found by an artisan of ordinary skill in finding operable times to achieve the desired cooling of the extrudate depending upon other processing conditions such as pulling rates, chamber dimensions, chamber temperatures, extrudate temperature, and material used as the extrudate. In other words, it would be well within an artisan of ordinary skill that processing conditions, including such times, affect cooling, and thus can be manipulated to achieved desired cooling.
As to claim 2, French (US 4,575,326) further discloses a calibrator head 68 for sizing the duct
(tube) (col. 6, lines 46-50), but does not disclose the calibrator head being a sizing tube. Loe et al. (US
4,750,873) further disclose a sizing tube 3 capable of controlling an inner diameter and wall thickness of
the duct (tube) (via the vacuum through holes of the tube 3), wherein the sizing tube 3 defines a bore
that extends longitudinally therethrough for passage of the extruded duct 2 (fig. 1), defines a plurality of holes through the outer surface thereof (fig. 1, col. 3, lines 28-33), and has an inner diameter that
corresponds to an outer diameter of the duct (tube) 2 inside the sizing tube 3 (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 28-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was
made, to further modify the calibrator head of French (US 4,575,326) with a sizing tube, as disclosed by
Loe et al. (US 4,750,873), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an
alternative configuration for the calibration head known to be operable in the art for sizing the extruded
duct.
As to claim 3, French (US 4,575,326) further discloses a two-stage water bath further comprising
a gasket 75 in the wall that separates the first chamber 65 from the second chamber 74, wherein the
first cooled material is pulled through the gasket 75 into the second chamber 74 (fig. 4).
As to claim 4, Loe et al. (US 4,750,873) further disclose the two-stage water cooling chamber
wherein the second chamber water temperature is less than the first chamber water temperature (col.
3, lines 33-43; water in first chamber 5 is 60 degrees C, and water in second chamber 9 is 20 degrees C;
20 is less than 60).
As to claim 5, Loe et al. (US 4,750,873) further disclose a first chamber water temperature of 60
degrees C (140 degrees F), and a second chamber water temperature of 20 degrees C (68 degrees F)
(col. 3, lines 33-43). While these temperatures are disclosed in Loe et al. (US 4,750,873), it would have
been well within an artisan of ordinary skill to adjust these temperatures, such as to the temperatures
recited in claim 5, to achieve the desired cooling depending upon the processing conditions to achieve desired cooling, as mentioned above.
As to claims 6-7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
invention was made, to further modify the second chamber temperature to be greater than the first
chamber temperature because it is known in the art that that there can be multiple chambers, as
disclosed by French (US 4,575,326), Loe et al. (US 4,750,873) and Bessemer et al. (US6,620, 354), and
because it is known in the art that a chamber temperature can be controlled up and down, as disclosed
by Bessemer et al. (US6,620,354). As to the specific instantly claimed temperatures of the chambers in
instant claim 7, such temperatures would have been found by an artisan of ordinary skill in finding operable temperatures adjusted up and down to achieve the desired cooling and the desired temperature in the extruded product depending upon the processing conditions as mentioned above.
As to claim 10, Loe et al. (US 4,750,873) further discloses a gasket 10 in a second wall that
defines the second chamber 8 (fig. 1), wherein a second cooled material (cooled in the second chamber
8) travels through the gasket 10 out of the second chamber 8 (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 43-44, the jacket 4 is
closed off from the extruded tube 2 by a flexible collar (gasket) 10, thus it would be obvious, if not
inherent, that the gasket 10 in the second wall of the second chamber 8 would remove residual water
from an outer surface of the tube (second cooled material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the apparatus with a gasket, as disclosed by Loe et al. (US 4,750,873), because such a modification is known in the art and would enable closing off the water bath from the extruded tube.
As to claims 11-12, pulling extrudate is known in the art as mentioned above. While French (US 4,575,326) specifies that the second chamber 74 of the tank 24 includes a means (rollers 78 and 80) for restraining the duct 10 in a submerged position beneath the water level 76 as it traverses through the tank, Loe et al. (US 4,750,873) further discloses the extrude traveling through the first and second chamber without any roller restraining means. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to further modify the apparatus to be without the means (rollers 78 and 80) for restraining the duct (i.e., to modify the apparatus to travel unrestrained through the chambers), as disclosed by Loe et al. (US 4,750,873), because such a modification is known in the art and would provide an alternative configuration for the apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the office action asserts that French discloses a two-stage water bath (see, e.g., FIG 4) comprising a first chamber 65 and a second chamber 74, wherein the first chamber 65 receives a continuous tubular stream of extruded material from an extruder die 32. Notably, the Office Action acknowledges that French does not disclose a PHA drink straw. Rather, the extruded material of French is a duct 10. The duct 10 is configured such that a plurality of electrical conductors traverses through an inner cavity or bore 11 of the duct 10. Thus, the duct must have a sufficiently large inner diameter to physically accommodate the specified plurality of electrical conductors. And it must be of sufficient strength to carry them.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Office Action acknowledges that French does not disclose a PHA drink straw. However, French discloses that even empty ducts (tubes) can be manufactured (i.e., ducts with electrical conductors) as mentioned in the prior art rejection above. Note that empty ducts (tubes) are capable of being used as drink straws.
Applicant respectfully submits that, in contradistinction to the claimed invention, French nowhere teaches or suggests that the extruded material is pulled into the first chamber. By contrast, French specifies that molten resin from an annular compartment 54 is directed to an annular die orifice 36 through a throat region 56 under pressure. Exiting from the die orifice 36 is a cone of molten resin. The Office Action asserts that it would have been obvious to modify the two-stage water bath of French with a puller mechanism, as disclosed by Bessemer et al. (US6,620,354). Applicant respectfully traverses this assertion. As the duct in the French system is extruded under pressure, there is no need for pulling. And there is no teaching in French, or elsewhere in the cited prior art, that would motivate one to
consider modifying the apparatus of French to include pulling the duct through the water bath.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is known in the art that Extruders/extrusion dies extrude materials under pressure, as recited by French. However, French does NOT disclose that there is no need for pulling OR that such extrusion pressure in throat region 56 is used for anything other than extrusion. Puller mechanisms are known in the art for transporting/pulling extrudate into and through processing equipment downstream from an extruder, as disclosed by Bessemer as mentioned in the prior art rejections above.
Applicant argues that, further, because the claimed invention is directed to pulling PHA material in the process of making a drink straw, one skilled in the art would be counseled against pulling the material. PHA material is known to be softer and more likely to break as it's pulled than would be the polymer material used to make the ducts specified in French.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants arguments are conclusory without factual basis. Note that Applicants pull extruded PHA material with puller 116 for pulling the PHA extrudate, and thus PHA extrudate material is capable of being pulled.
Applicant has discovered that, in a system that includes pulling tubular PHA material, due to the
much smaller diameter and material thickness of a drink straw, as compared to a duct for carrying a
plurality of electrical conductors, the much softer and thinner PHA material tends to break easily. Such
breakage would be totally unacceptable for the mass production of PHA drink straws. Applicant's claimed invention solves the problem of pulling a stream of PHA material without its breaking. Only in hindsight would one think to convert the system of French from a pressurized extrusion system to a puller for the manufacture of PHA drink straws.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art rejection does not rely on hindsight because puller mechanisms are known in the art, as disclosed by Bessemer as mentioned above. It would be obvious, if not inherent, that the extrudate (formed from molten material) would need to be sufficiently stabilized/cooled/formed to enable such known continuous (no breaks) pulling of the extrudate.
Applicant argues that the Office Action further asserts that the puller mechanism of Bessemer would enable pulling of the extrudate through the water bath at a rate. Perhaps. But Bessemer nowhere teaches or suggests pulling the extrudate through the water baths over a predefined periods of time sufficient to solidify the PHA material. Only using impermissible hindsight is one able to conclude that keeping the tubular PHA material in a two-stage water bath, where the temperature of the water baths, and the time it takes to solidify the material, are predefined.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, pulling is known in the art and cooling to solidify is known in the art. See prior art rejection above.
Applicant argues that, with regard to newly added claims 11 and 12, the cited references fail to teach or suggest pulling the PHA material through the chambers of the two-stage water bath unrestrained. By contrast, French specifies that the second chamber 74 of the tank 24 includes a means for restraining the duct 10 in a submerged position beneath the water level 76 as it traverses through the tank. The specified restraining means includes a pair of inflatable and deformable rollers 78 and 80 which rotate about an axis transverse to the direction of travel of the duct 10 (as shown by arrow 82) as the duct traverses the tank 24 between the inlet and exit openings. Applicant's claimed system requires no such restraining means, and the PHA material is pulled unrestrained as it traverses the chambers of the two-stage water bath.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, pulling is known in the art and unrestrained is known in the art. See prior art rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S LEYSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5061. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:30pm.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 5712705343. 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.
/J.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744