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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 09 July 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, and 9-21 are currently pending in the application. The rejections of record from the office action dated 26 February 2026 not repeated herein have been withdrawn.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed 09 July 2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson (WO 2013/116763 A1) in view of Minami et al. (US 2017/0362396 A1) and Dellinger et al. (US 2014/0186644 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, 10-16, and 19-20, Sanderson discloses a bioplastic composition for making containers including living hinges, wherein the composition comprises polylactic acid in an amount of about 5 wt% to about 85 wt% and polyhydroxyalkanoate in an amount of about 10 wt% to about 90 wt% (i.e. a molded polymer article comprising a first structural portion, a second structural portion and a living hinge connecting the first structural portion and the second structural portion, wherein the first structural portion, the second structural portion and the living hinge are all integrally molded from a polymeric composition comprising overlapping about 20 to about 95 or about 40 to about 95 or about 65 to about 90 weight percent of polyhydroxyalkanoates, from about 5 to about 75 or about 5 to about 60 or about 10 to about 35 weight percent of a biodegradable polymer selected from polylactic acid)(abstract, [0001]-[0002], [0004]-[0007], [0016], [0023]-[0025], Fig. 1-5). Sanderson does not disclose that the composition contains hemp, wood flour, oat hulls, coffee chaff, calcium carbonate or starch. Therefore, the composition comprises 0% of these fillers (i.e. less than about 1 weight percent of a filler, wherein the filler comprises any of: hemp, wood flour, oat hulls, coffee chaff, calcium carbonate or starch; less than about 0.1 weight percent of a filler).
Sanderson does not disclose about 0.01 to about 5.0 weight percent of a nucleating agent or from about 0.01 to about 5.0 weight percent of at least one mold processing aid.
Minami discloses articles formed from polylactic acid and polyhydroxyalkanoate and pentaerythritol in an amount of 0.05 to 20 parts by weight to 100 of polylactic acid and polyhydroxyalkanoate in order to provide good flow properties during processing (i.e. overlapping from about 0.01 to about 5.0 or about 0.1 to about 2.0 weight percent of a nucleating agent; pentaerythritol; overlapping wherein the nucleating agent comprises pentaerythritol in an amount of from about 0.1 to about 2.0 weight percent of the polymeric composition)(abstract, [0008]-[0009], [0064]).
Sanderson and Minami are analogous art because they both teach about articles comprising polylactic acid and polyhydroxyalkanoate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the pentaerythritol in the amounts of Minami into the article of Sanderson in order to provide the advantage of good flow properties during processing.
Dellinger discloses a biodegradable container comprising a wax such as oleamide, stearamide or erucamide at 0 to 15 wt% in order to improve moisture resistance, reduce brittleness and improve release characteristics (i.e. overlapping from about 0.01 to about 5.0 or about 0.1 to about 2.0 weight percent of at least one mold processing aid; selected from oleamide, erucamide, stearamide; overlapping mold processing aid in an amount of from about 0.1 to about 2.0 weight percent)(abstract, [0017], [0029]).
Sanderson and Dellinger are analogous art because they both teach about biodegradable containers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the oleamide, stearamide or erucamide in the amount of Dellinger into the container of Sanderson in order to improve moisture resistance, reduce brittleness and improve release characteristics.
Given that the container of modified Sanderson is identical in composition to the instantly claimed article and as set forth in the instant specification (living hinge molded from a polymeric composition that comprises overlapping amounts of polyhydroxyalkanoates, biodegradable polymer selected from PLA, overlapping amounts of nucleating agent and mold processing agent)(See instant specification at [0036]-[0043]), it is the examiner’s position that the living hinge of the container of modified Sanderson will intrinsically survive at least 10 cycles of opening and closing without breaking.
Regarding claims 15-16, it is clear from Figures 1-5 that Sanderson discloses a flip-top cap and a clamshell container. It is also noted that these are well-known container configurations and would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 19, given that the container of modified Sanderson is identical in composition to the instantly claimed article and as set forth in the instant specification (living hinge molded from a polymeric composition that comprises overlapping amounts of polyhydroxyalkanoates, biodegradable polymer selected from PLA, overlapping amounts of nucleating agent and mold processing agent)(See instant specification at [0036]-[0043]), it is the examiner’s position that the living hinge of the container of modified Sanderson will intrinsically survive at least 100 cycles of opening and closing without breaking.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson (WO 2013/116763 A1), Minami et al. (US 2017/0362396 A1) and Dellinger et al. (US 2014/0186644 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Johnson et al. (US 2020/0095420 A1).
Regarding claims 4-7, modified Sanderson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sanderson teaches an amount of polyhydroxyalkanoate that overlaps 20 to 95 weight percent as set forth above. Sanderson does not disclose that the polyhydroxyalkanoate copolymer comprises from about 75 to about 99 mole percent hydroxybutyrate monomer residues and from about 1 to about 25 mole percent of hydroxyalkanoate selected from the group consisting of hydroxyvalerate, hydroxyhexanoate, hydroxyoctanoate and hydroxydecanoate or that the composition comprises poly-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate (P(3HB-co-3HHx)) or a polyhydroxyalkanoate terpolymer or that the polyhydroxyalkanoates have a weight average molecular weight from about 50,000 Daltons to about 2.5 million Daltons.
Johnson discloses biodegradable articles comprising polyhydroxyalkanoates, wherein the polyhydroxyalkanoates may comprise about 65 to about 99.5 mole percent hydroxybutyrate and about 0.5 to about 30 hydroxyhexanoate moieties and the monomer residues may be 3-hydroxybutyrate and 3-hydroxyhexanoate (i.e. overlapping about 75 to about 99 mole percent hydroxybutyrate monomer residues and from about 1 to about 25 mole percent of hydroxyalkanoate selected from the group consisting of hydroxyhexanoate; poly-3-bydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyhexanoate (P(3HB-co-3HHx)))([0010]), Johnson additionally discloses that the polyhydroxyalkanoates me be a terpolymer (polyhydroxyalkanoate terpolymer)([0023]) and that the polyhydroxyalkanoates may have a weight average molecular weight from about 100 Daltons to about 2.5 million Daltons (i.e. overlapping from about 50,000 Daltons to about 2.5 million Daltons)([0011]).
Sanderson and Johnson are analogous art because they both teach about biodegradable articles comprising polyhydroxyalkanoates. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any of the polyhydroxyalkanoates disclosed by Johnson having the weight average molecular weights disclosed by Johnson because doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson (WO 2013/116763 A1), Minami et al. (US 2017/0362396 A1) and Dellinger et al. (US 2014/0186644 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ribi (US 2019/0335931 A1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Sanderson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Sanderson does not disclose that the article is a folding cutlery piece.
Ribi discloses a folding spoon having a living hinge (i.e. is a folding cutlery piece)(abstract, [0064], Fig. 1A-C).
Sanderson and Ribi are analogous art because they both teach about articles having living hinges. It would have been obvious to make the article of Sanderson a folding spoon as disclosed by Ribi in order to provide a biodegradable foldable spoon that is environmentally friendly. Doing so amounts to nothing more than using a known composition in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson (WO 2013/116763 A1), Minami et al. (US 2017/0362396 A1) and Dellinger et al. (US 2014/0186644 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kyte (US 5,896,868).
Regarding claim 17, modified Sanderson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Modified Sanderson does not disclose that the article is a hinged dental flosser.
Kyte discloses a dental floss container comprising a living hinge (i.e. hinged dental flosser)(abstract, Fig. 1, C2/L39-45).
Sanderson and Kyte are analogous art because they both teach about articles having living hinges. It would have been obvious to make the article of Sanderson a dental floss container comprising a living hinge as disclosed by Kyte in order to provide a biodegradable dental floss container that is environmentally friendly. Doing so amounts to nothing more than using a known composition in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson (WO 2013/116763 A1) , Minami et al. (US 2017/0362396 A1) and Dellinger et al. (US 2014/0186644 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Tokiwa et al. (US 2003/0079654 A1).
Regarding claim 21, modified Sanderson discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sanderson does not disclose about 5 to about 60 weight percent of poly(butylene-succinate-co-adipate). It is noted that Sanderson discloses an overlapping amount of polyhydroxyalkanoates and an overlapping amount of polylactic acid.
Tokiwa discloses that polylactic acid and poly(butylene-succinate-co-adipate) are equivalent and interchangeable biodegradable resins for use in containers ([0013], [0053]).
Sanderson and Tokiwa are analogous art because they both teach about containers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interchange the polylactic acid of the container of Sanderson with poly(butylene-succinate-co-adipate) as taught be Tokiwa because they are well-known equivalents and doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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 09 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited combination of references fails to teach or suggest that the composition comprises less than about 1 weight percent of a filler, wherein the filler comprises any of: hemp, wood flour, oat hulls, coffee chaff, clays, calcium carbonate, talc and starch.
As set forth above, Sanderson does not disclose that the composition contains hemp, wood flour, oat hulls, coffee chaff, calcium carbonate or starch. Therefore, the composition comprises 0% of these fillers (i.e. less than about 1 weight percent of a filler wherein the filler comprises any of: hemp, wood flour, oat hulls, coffee chaff, calcium carbonate or starch; less than about 0.1 weight percent of a filler).
Applicant argues that Sanderson teaches away from a composition having less than 1 weight percent of a filler because it requires talc and clay.
As set forth above, Sanderson does not disclose that the composition contains hemp, wood flour, oat hulls, coffee chaff, calcium carbonate or starch. Therefore, the composition comprises 0% of these fillers (i.e. less than about 1 weight percent of a filler selected from hemp, wood flour, oat hulls, coffee chaff, calcium carbonate or starch; less than about 0.1 weight percent of a filler).
Applicant argues that Sanderson does not disclose “wherein the hinge survives at least 10 cycles of opening and closing without breaking”.
As set forth above, given that the container of modified Sanderson is identical in composition to the instantly claimed article and as set forth in the instant specification (living hinge molded from a polymeric composition that comprises overlapping amounts of polyhydroxyalkanoates, biodegradable polymer selected from PLA, overlapping amounts of nucleating agent and mold processing agent)(See instant specification at [0036]-[0043]), it is the examiner’s position that the living hinge of the container of modified Sanderson will intrinsically survive at least 10 cycles of opening and closing without breaking.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not modify Sanderson with Dellinger because Sanderson is directed to a bioplastic composition, while Dellinger is directed to a moisture resistant coating and there is no expectation that the improved properties would apply to a substrate material.
Applicants argument is unpersuasive given that Sanderson and Dellinger are analogous art because they both teach about biodegradable containers. Further, applicant provides no evidence to support the assertion that the improvement in properties from the oleamide, stearamide or erucamide of Dellinger would not be found if it was incorporated into the container of Sanderson.
Applicant argues that the examiner has not provided an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning for making the combination of Sanderson and Dellinger.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive given that examiner has provided an articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning for making the combination. As set forth above, Sanderson and Dellinger are analogous art because they both teach about biodegradable containers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the oleamide, stearamide or erucamide in the amount of Dellinger into the container of Sanderson in order to improve moisture resistance, reduce brittleness and improve release characteristics.
Applicant argues that the Office has not indicated why one skilled in the art would take a surface coating and mix that coating into a composition and in so doing the components would be diluted.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because examiner has not argued mixing a surface coating into the composition of Sanderson. As set forth above, Sanderson and Dellinger are analogous art because they both teach about biodegradable containers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the oleamide, stearamide or erucamide in the amount of Dellinger into the container of Sanderson in order to improve moisture resistance, reduce brittleness and improve release characteristics.
Applicant argues that one making a living hinge would not look to a surface coating to make the hinge more robust.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. Given that Sanderson and Dellinger both teach about biodegradable containers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Dellinger to improve the biodegradable container of Sanderson.
Applicant argues, regarding claim 18, that the Office has not indicated why one of ordinary skill in the art would change the device from a multi-part device of Kyte into a unitary construction.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because examiner does not argue that one should change the device from a multi-part device of Kyte into a unitary construction. As set forth above, Sanderson and Kyte are analogous art because they both teach about articles having living hinges. It would have been obvious to make the article of Sanderson a dental floss container comprising a living hinge as disclosed by Kyte in order to provide a biodegradable dental floss container that is environmentally friendly. Doing so amounts to nothing more than using a known composition in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C YAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3880. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6 EST M-F.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/JAMES C YAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
