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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 12/16/25. Claims 11 and 25 have been amended. Claims 1-10, 13, 16-22, 26, and 27 have been canceled. Claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 23-25, 28, and 29 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 14, 15, 23-25, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang USPN_5922379.
1. Regarding Claims 11, 23-25, and 28, Wang discloses a method (Abstract) for producing a biodegradable starch-based composition (Title) that can also be used as a packaging material that can possess high compressive strength and good resilience (Abstract). Wang also discloses having a plurality of closed cellular structures (column 8, lines 4-10) that provides compressability (column 6, lines 30-34). Wang further discloses using corn husks from all-natural corn (corresponds to claimed plant-based fibrous material of instant claims 11, 12, and 28) as a reinforcing material (column 6, lines 29-44). Wang discloses the use of mixing (corresponds to claimed blending) (column 2, lines 66-67) starch, such as corn starch (column 3, lines 53-57; Table 2), with said corn husk, along with water (corresponds to claimed hydrating of claim 12), and nucleating agents (column 2, lines 57-65) such as sodium bicarbonate and citric acid (corresponds to claimed limitations of Claims 11, 14, and 15); wherein said bicarbonate and acid can reach to form a gas (column 5, lines 49-58). Wang also discloses placing the aforementioned into a mold (column 7, lines 56-61) and also drying (corresponds to claimed heating step) (column 7, lines 32-35).
2. However, Wang does not disclose the claimed uneven surface. It also does not explicitly disclose the claimed volumetric amount of water or the weight of its corn starch per corn husk.
3. Wang discloses using nucleating agents in producing a uniform structure (column 5, lines 48-49). Although Wang does not explicitly disclose a non-uniform structure (uneven), the Examiner respectfully submits that ultimately this will depend upon the end-user specifications required in the resulting packaging material. As such, if the end-product requires an uneven surface to package, then it would be expected for one of ordinary skill in the art to know how to vary the use of nucleating agents in order to obtain such an uneven surface. Applicants have not disclosed how this specifically claimed feature results in unexpected or surprising properties. Furthermore, the nucleating agents that Wang uses contain bicarbonate and citric acid (column 5, lines 48-49) that can also be used as endothermal blowing agents (column 5, lines 37-40). Thus, the limitation of instant Claims 23, 24, and 25 would also be rendered obvious in light of one of ordinary skill in the art varying these concentrations for a desired surface.
4. Wang discloses that water can be used in a wide range of weight concentration of 8 to 20 wt% (column 4, lines 62-63). Although this is not an explicit teaching of the claimed volumetric content, it certainly allows for a wide range. Moreover, Wang discloses that water can be used as both a plasticizer and a blowing agent wherein an effective amount of water will improve the processing flowability of the composition and also enhance the physical properties (column 4, lines 58-62). Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to know how to vary the amount of water based on these desired properties. Applicants have not disclosed how this specifically claimed feature results in unexpected or surprising properties.
5. Although Wang does not disclose the claimed weight of corn starch to corn husks, it does disclose that the use of cellulosic fiber (corresponds to corn husk) as reinforcement in starch compositions reduces the overall composition cost and also enhances toughness, thermal, and strength properties (column 2, lines 35-39). It would therefore be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the ration of corn starch and corn husk in view of the desired cost, toughness, thermal and strength properties. Applicants have not disclosed how this specifically claimed feature results in unexpected or surprising properties.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang USPN_5922379, as applied to Claim 11, and in view of Greenberg USPA_20210345803_A1.
6. Regarding Claim 29, Wang does not disclose the use of corn husks derived from waste.
7. Greenberg discloses using corn husk waste for making biodegradable products (Abstract, paragraphs 0035, 0039).
8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the use of corn husks, of Wang, by trying the use of corn husks waste, of Greenberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so for environmental reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
All of applicants’ remarks are directed at Lacourse.
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 TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 March 19, 2026