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 .
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.
3. Claims 1, 3 have been amended and claims 1-5 are pending as amended on 11/26/25.
4. The new ground of rejection set forth below for claims are necessitated by Applicant's amendment filed on 11/26/25. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to include feature ‘consist of ’ and claim 3 has been amended to make ‘free of.’ Now, the scope of independent claims 1, 3 and the claims depends from claim 1, 3 are changed. For this reason, the present action is properly made final.
5. Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
6. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application JAPAN 2022-056285 03/30/2022 filed on 07/10/23.
Response to Amendment
8. Applicant's amendment filed on 11/26/25, has been fully considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments with respect to rejection of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekisui Plastics (JP 2009235170) filed on 11/26/25, have been fully considered but are moot in view of amendment. Previous rejections have been withdrawn.
10. Applicant's arguments with respect to rejection of claims 3-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (US 2018/0291196) and claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (US 2018/0291196) and Kurihara (JP
2009249583) filed on 11/26/25, have been fully considered but are moot in view of amendment. Previous rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katsunori (JP 2010023333).
Regarding claim 1, Katsunori discloses a method for producing a processed molded article, the method comprising: preparing a molded article that contains polylactic acid, wherein the polylactic acid containing only one optical isomer of D-form or L-form (page 2, para 11, claim 5; read on the polylactic acid consists of either a polylactic acid containing an L-lactic acid unit at an amount of 99.0 mol% or more based on a total constituent unit of the polylactic acid, or a polylactic acid containing a D-lactic acid unit at an amount of 99.0 mol% or more based on the total constituent unit of the polylactic acid) and impregnating the molded article with carbon dioxide (page 9, para 8, claims 7, 9).
Regarding claim 2, Katsunori discloses the impregnating of the molded article with the carbon dioxide, impregnation time is 3 to 8 hours (para 13) read on claimed 30 minutes or longer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (Liu et al, Crystallization morphology regulation on enhancing heat resistance of polylactic acid, Polymers, 2020, 12, 1563, pages 1-11) as evidenced from Fredi (G. Fredi et al, Tuning thermo-mechanical properties of poly(lactic acid) films through blending with bioderived poly(alkylene furanoate)s with different alkyl chain length for sustainable packaging, Polymer, 2021, 218, 123527, pages 1-13).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses a processed molded article (para 2.5), comprising: neat polylactic acid, e.g. PLA, 4032D supplied by Natureworks (para 2.1). As evidenced from Fredi (para 2.1) PLA, 4032D contains 2% D-lactic acid unit and 98% L-lactic acid, results in 98 mol% L-lactic acid, close enough to claimed 99 mol% L-Lactic acid, wherein the neat polylactic acid has crystallinity 2.5 nm (para 3.3), fall into claimed range of 40 nm or less.
98 mol% L-lactic acid of Liu is close enough to claimed 99 mol% L-Lactic acid. 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).
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses neat polylactic acid has degree of crystallinity of 30% (para 3.3), fall into claimed range of 30 to 60%.
16. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as evidenced from Fredi as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kurihara (JP 2009249583).
Liu includes the features of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 5, Liu does not disclose the processed molded article has transmittance of light of 80% or more, the light having a wavelength of 400 nm.
However, Kurihara discloses a processed molded article composed of polylactic acid, wherein the processed molded article has a light transmittance of 80% or more at
wavelengths of 400 nm to 700 nm, which make it suitable for transparent applications (para [0021], claim 3). It has been noted that the light transmittance is a process-dependent property that can be varied by how the material is manufactured and treated, as its final value relies on processing conditions and additives.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of invention, to modify Liu with the processing conditions used in Kurihara for the molded articles to obtain the light transmittance of 80% or more at wavelengths of 400 nm to 700 nm. The rationale to do so would have been motivation provided by of Kurihara that to do so would make the processed molded article suitable for transparent applications.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUMAR R BHUSHAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4807. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00 AM to 5.50 PM (EST).
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, RANDY P GULAKOWSKI can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/KUMAR R BHUSHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766