DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please insert “at least one” prior to “modified”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please insert “at least one” prior to “modified”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please insert “at least one” prior to “protein”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, please replace “the total” with “a total”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “weight of the” with “weight of a”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “weight of the” with “weight of a”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, please replace “weight of the” with “weight of a”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, delete “obtainable or”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 1, please replace “in the form of” with “wherein the water-soluble article is”.
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 1, 3-7, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 106947196) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2017/0081442).
Ma discloses a composition comprising 30 to 60 parts of modified polyvinyl alcohol, 5 to 20 parts of modified starch, 10 to 30 parts of plasticizer, 3 parts of lubricant, and 3 parts of antioxidant. The plasticizer is processed form waste cooking oil. The components are mixed in a vacuum mixer, and the resulting mixture is homogenized with a high-pressure homogenizer. The homogenized mixture is then extruded and granulation (paragraph [0066]-[0067]).
While reference does not disclose formation of pellets, such a practice is well-established in the art. Johnson et al. teaches preparation of pellets of a composition comprising polyvinyl alcohol using an extrusion apparatus equipped with a multi-cavity die to produce strands of the composition which are then pelletized in a pelletizer unit. One of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Ma, not having a granulator at his disposal, would have found it obvious to make pellets as per Johnson et al. for storage and shipping of the composition for commercial use. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that a cooking oil contains a vegetable (seed) oil such as those recited in claims.
Ma further discloses melting the composition to form a bag or container for fish bait (paragraph [0022]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that melting requires heating the composition well above the 5 ºC threshold set forth in instant claims.
Claim 4 is rejected as it merely limits an optional component.
In summary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention of instant claims based on the combination of teachings of Ma and Johnson et al.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 106947196) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2017/0081442) and further in view of Ota et al. (US 11,578,193).
The discussion of the disclosure of the prior art from the previous paragraph is incorporated here by reference. Ma does not disclose the nature of the modified starch. One of ordinary skill in the art learns from Ota et al. that a modified starch suitable for blending with polyvinyl alcohol is hydroxypropoxylated starch wherein starch is etherified (col. 10, line 27). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the composition of Ma using etherified starch as the modified starch component.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 106947196) in view of Ota et al. (US 11,578,193).
Ma discloses a composition comprising 30 to 60 parts of modified polyvinyl alcohol, 5 to 20 parts of modified starch, 10 to 30 parts of plasticizer, 3 parts of lubricant, and 3 parts of antioxidant. The plasticizer is processed form waste cooking oil. The components are mixed in a vacuum mixer, and the resulting mixture is homogenized with a high-pressure homogenizer. The homogenized mixture is then extruded and granulation (paragraph [0066]-[0067]).
While reference does not disclose formation of pellets, such a practice is well-established in the art. Ota et al. teaches preparation of pellets of a composition comprising polyvinyl alcohol and starch using an extrusion apparatus equipped with a strand nozzle having a plurality of holes to produce multiple strands of the composition which are then pelletized in with a rotation cutter (col. 10, line 11). One of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Ma, not having a granulator at his disposal, would have found it obvious to make pellets as per Ota et al. for storage and shipping of the composition for commercial use. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that a cooking oil contains a vegetable (seed) oil such as those recited in claims. While Ma does not disclose the nature of the modified starch, one of ordinary skill in the art learns from Ota et al. that a modified starch suitable for blending with polyvinyl alcohol is hydroxypropoxylated starch wherein starch is etherified (col. 10, line 27). The skilled artisan would have found it obvious to make the composition of Ma using etherified starch as the modified starch component
Ma further discloses melting the composition to form a bag or container for fish bait (paragraph [0022]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that melting requires heating the composition well above the 5 ºC threshold set forth in instant claims.
Claim 4 is rejected as it merely limits an optional component.
In summary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the invention of instant claims based on the combination of teachings of Ma and Ota et al.
15. Claim 8 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. None of cited references teaches claimed pellet comprising from about 7 % to about 10 % by weight of at least one protein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rip A. Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-1104. The examiner can be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Jones, can be reached at (571)270-7733. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RIP A LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762 October 21, 2025