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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 3-11, 13, and 20, in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2, 12, and 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/06/2026.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 3-11, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeom et al. (EP 3231830 A1, cited in IDS, made of record on 08/01/2023).
Regarding claims 3-6, Yeom teaches a biodegradable polyester resin including a dicarboxylic acid residue, a diol residue, and a residue derived from a tetra- or higher functional branching agent [0004, 0021], wherein a foam can be obtained from the biodegradable polyester resin [0005, 0023, 0058], wherein the branching agent may include at least one compound represented by formula
PNG
media_image1.png
168
150
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0011, 0038], wherein an amount of the residue derived from the branching agent may be in a range of about 0.0014 part by mol to about 0.0046 part by mol based on 1 part by mol of the dicarboxylic acid residue [0014, 0048, 0065], wherein the biodegradable polyester resin has an improved foaming ratio [0021], wherein the branching agent may be a pentaerythritol having four hydroxyl groups [0036], wherein the biodegradable polyester resin may be prepared by performing an esterification reaction and a polycondensation reaction between a dicarboxylic acid and/or a derivative thereof corresponding to the dicarboxylic acid residue and a diol corresponding to the diol residue [0060], where in order to promote the esterification reaction, the esterification may be performed in the presence of a catalyst [0067], which reads on a biodegradable branched polyester for foaming, characterized by branching obtained through the process of preparation of claim 1, wherein the process for preparation of claim 1 is a process for obtaining a biodegradable branched polyester for foaming comprising (i) an esterification step in the presence of a diol and dicarboxylic components, and at least one polyfunctional compound containing at least one polyfunctional compound containing four acid (COOH) or four hydroxyl (OH) functional groups, present in a concentration of 0.14-0.46% mol with respect to the total moles of the dicarboxylic component, wherein at least two of said hydroxyl functional groups are primary and at least further two of said hydroxyl functional groups are primary, provided that, if present, the secondary hydroxyl group is not vicinal to another secondary hydroxyl group, and an esterification catalyst, and (ii) a polycondensation step in the presence of a polycondensation catalyst, wherein the polyfunctional compound is selected from polyols and polyacids, wherein said polyol is selected from pentaerythritol, wherein said polyol is pentaerythritol. The % mol is based on the calculation 0.0014 / 1 * 100 = 0.14 and 0.0046 / 1 * 100 = 0.46.
Yeom does not teach that the at least one polyfunctional compound containing at least four acid (COOH) or at least four hydroxyl (OH) functional groups is present in a concentration of 0.2-0.7% mol with respect to the total moles of the dicarboxylic component. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize an amount of Yeom’s residue derived from Yeom’s branching agent to be in a range of 0.0020 part by mol to 0.0046 part by mol based on 1 part by mol of Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue. The proposed modification would read on the at least one polyfunctional compound containing at least one polyfunctional compound containing four acid (COOH) or four hydroxyl (OH) functional groups is present in a concentration of 0.2-0.46% mol with respect to the total moles of the dicarboxylic component as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing reduction in a reaction time for polymerization to prepare Yeom’s biodegradable polyester for optimizing improvement in melt viscosity of Yeom’s biodegradable polyester because Yeom teaches that an amount of the residue derived from the branching agent may be in a range of about 0.0014 part by mol to about 0.0046 part by mol based on 1 part by mol of the dicarboxylic acid residue [0014, 0048, 0065], and that when an amount of the residue derived from the branching agent is within this range, a reaction time for polymerization to prepare the biodegradable polyester may be reduced, and a biodegradable polyester resin having an improved melt viscosity may be obtained [0049].
The Office recognizes that all of the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Yeom, namely said polyester being further characterized by a viscoelastic ratio (RVE) of less than 40000. However, Yeom renders obvious all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the biodegradable branched polyester as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that in order to assess the quality of the melt and its possible processing behavior in industrial coating processes it is therefore necessary to consider both properties by means of the viscoelastic ratio, RVE (p. 8), and that the polyester according to the present invention is characterized by a ratio of viscosity to melt strength, viscoelastic ratio (RVE) of less than 40000 (p. 10). Also, Yeom and that the biodegradable polyester resin has an improved melt viscosity [0021]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the biodegradable branched polyester that is rendered obvious by Yeom. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 7, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Yeom, namely that the biodegradable branched polyester according to claim 3 is characterized by a viscoelastic ratio (RVE) of less than 27000. However, Yeom renders obvious all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the biodegradable branched polyester according to claim 3 as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that in order to assess the quality of the melt and its possible processing behavior in industrial coating processes it is therefore necessary to consider both properties by means of the viscoelastic ratio, RVE (p. 8), and that the polyester according to the present invention is characterized by a ratio of viscosity to melt strength, viscoelastic ratio (RVE) of less than 40000 (p. 10). Also, Yeom and that the biodegradable polyester resin has an improved melt viscosity [0021]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the biodegradable branched polyester that is rendered obvious by Yeom. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 8, Yeom teaches that the biodegradable polyester resin includes a dicarboxylic acid residue, a diol residue, and a residue derived from a tetra- or higher functional branching agent [0004, 0021], that the dicarboxylic acid residue may include a residue derived from at least one dicarboxylic acid compound selected from the group consisting of a substituted or unsubstituted C4-C10 aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, a derivative of the aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, a substituted or unsubstituted C8-C20 aromatic dicarboxylic acid, and a derivative of the aromatic dicarboxylic acid [0029], and that the diol residue may include a residue derived from at least one diol compound selected from the group consisting of a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C10 aliphatic diol and a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C20 aromatic diol [0031], which optionally reads on wherein said polyester is selected from the among biodegradable aliphatic and aliphatic-aromatic polyesters as claimed.
Yeom does not teach a specific embodiment wherein said polyester is selected from the among biodegradable aliphatic and aliphatic-aromatic polyesters. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue to be Yeom’s residue derived from a substituted or unsubstituted C4-C10 aliphatic dicarboxylic acid and to select Yeom’s diol residue to be Yeom’s residue derived from a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C10 aliphatic diol, or to select Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue to be Yeom’s residue derived from a substituted or unsubstituted C4-C10 aliphatic dicarboxylic acid and to select Yeom’s diol residue to be Yeom’s residue derived from a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C20 aromatic diol, or to select Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue to be Yeom’s residue derived from a substituted or unsubstituted C8-C20 aromatic dicarboxylic acid and to select Yeom’s diol residue to be Yeom’s residue derived from a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C10 aliphatic diol. The proposed modification would read on wherein said polyester is selected from the among biodegradable aliphatic and aliphatic-aromatic polyesters as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing species of Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue and a species of Yeom’s diol residue that are suitable for Yeom’s biodegradable polyester resin and/or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Yeom teaches that the biodegradable polyester resin includes a dicarboxylic acid residue, a diol residue, and a residue derived from a tetra- or higher functional branching agent [0004, 0021], that the dicarboxylic acid residue may include a residue derived from at least one dicarboxylic acid compound selected from the group consisting of a substituted or unsubstituted C4-C10 aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, a derivative of the aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, a substituted or unsubstituted C8-C20 aromatic dicarboxylic acid, and a derivative of the aromatic dicarboxylic acid [0029], and that the diol residue may include a residue derived from at least one diol compound selected from the group consisting of a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C10 aliphatic diol and a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C20 aromatic diol [0031]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 9, Yeom teaches that the biodegradable polyester resin includes a dicarboxylic acid residue, a diol residue, and a residue derived from a tetra- or higher functional branching agent [0004, 0021], that the dicarboxylic acid residue may include a residue derived from at least one dicarboxylic acid compound selected from the group consisting of a substituted or unsubstituted C4-C10 aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, a derivative of the aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, a substituted or unsubstituted C8-C20 aromatic dicarboxylic acid, and a derivative of the aromatic dicarboxylic acid [0029], and that the diol residue may include a residue derived from at least one diol compound selected from the group consisting of a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C10 aliphatic diol and a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C20 aromatic diol [0031], which optionally reads on wherein said polyester is an aliphatic-aromatic polyester as claimed.
Yeom does not teach a specific embodiment wherein said polyester is an aliphatic-aromatic polyester. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue to be Yeom’s residue derived from a substituted or unsubstituted C4-C10 aliphatic dicarboxylic acid and to select Yeom’s diol residue to be Yeom’s residue derived from a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C20 aromatic diol, or to select Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue to be Yeom’s residue derived from a substituted or unsubstituted C8-C20 aromatic dicarboxylic acid and to select Yeom’s diol residue to be Yeom’s residue derived from a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C10 aliphatic diol. The proposed modification would read on wherein said polyester is an aliphatic-aromatic polyester as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing species of Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue and a species of Yeom’s diol residue that are suitable for Yeom’s biodegradable polyester resin and/or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Yeom teaches that the biodegradable polyester resin includes a dicarboxylic acid residue, a diol residue, and a residue derived from a tetra- or higher functional branching agent [0004, 0021], that the dicarboxylic acid residue may include a residue derived from at least one dicarboxylic acid compound selected from the group consisting of a substituted or unsubstituted C4-C10 aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, a derivative of the aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, a substituted or unsubstituted C8-C20 aromatic dicarboxylic acid, and a derivative of the aromatic dicarboxylic acid [0029], and that the diol residue may include a residue derived from at least one diol compound selected from the group consisting of a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C10 aliphatic diol and a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C20 aromatic diol [0031]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 10, Yeom teaches that the biodegradable polyester resin includes a dicarboxylic acid residue, a diol residue, and a residue derived from a tetra- or higher functional branching agent [0004, 0021], that the dicarboxylic acid residue may include a residue derived from at least one dicarboxylic acid compound selected from the group consisting of a substituted or unsubstituted C4-C10 aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, a derivative of the aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, a substituted or unsubstituted C8-C20 aromatic dicarboxylic acid, and a derivative of the aromatic dicarboxylic acid [0029], and that the diol residue may include a residue derived from at least one diol compound selected from the group consisting of a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C10 aliphatic diol and a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C20 aromatic diol [0031], which optionally reads on wherein said aliphatic-aromatic polyester is characterized by an aromatic acid content from 0 to 100% by moles relative to the total dicarboxylic component.
Yeom does not teach that said aliphatic-aromatic polyester is characterized by an aromatic acid content from 30 to 70% by moles relative to the total dicarboxylic component. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue to be Yeom’s residue derived from a substituted or unsubstituted C4-C10 aliphatic dicarboxylic acid and Yeom’s residue derived from a substituted or unsubstituted C8-C20 aromatic dicarboxylic acid and to select Yeom’s diol residue to be Yeom’s residue derived from at least one diol compound selected from the group consisting of a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C10 aliphatic diol and a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C20 aromatic diol, such that the molar amount of Yeom’s residue derived from a substituted or unsubstituted C4-C10 aliphatic dicarboxylic acid is equal to the molar amount of Yeom’s residue derived from a substituted or unsubstituted C8-C20 aromatic dicarboxylic acid. The proposed modification would read on wherein said aliphatic-aromatic polyester is characterized by an aromatic acid content that is 50% by moles relative to the total dicarboxylic component as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing species of Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue and a species of Yeom’s diol residue that are suitable for Yeom’s biodegradable polyester resin and/or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Yeom teaches that the biodegradable polyester resin includes a dicarboxylic acid residue, a diol residue, and a residue derived from a tetra- or higher functional branching agent [0004, 0021], that the dicarboxylic acid residue may include a residue derived from at least one dicarboxylic acid compound selected from the group consisting of a substituted or unsubstituted C4-C10 aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, a derivative of the aliphatic dicarboxylic acid, a substituted or unsubstituted C8-C20 aromatic dicarboxylic acid, and a derivative of the aromatic dicarboxylic acid [0029], and that the diol residue may include a residue derived from at least one diol compound selected from the group consisting of a substituted or unsubstituted C2-C10 aliphatic diol and a substituted or unsubstituted C6-C20 aromatic diol [0031]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). Also, based on Yeom’s teachings that are explained above, Yeom’s residue derived from a substituted or unsubstituted C4-C10 aliphatic dicarboxylic acid and Yeom’s residue derived from a substituted or unsubstituted C8-C20 aromatic dicarboxylic acid are equivalents known for the same purpose, which is that they are dicarboxylic acid residues used in a biodegradable polyester resin, and the most obvious amounts to try first for two ingredients that equivalents is to select equal amounts of the two ingredients. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art (MPEP 2144.06(I))."
Regarding claim 11, Yeom teaches that the biodegradable polyester resin includes a dicarboxylic acid residue, a diol residue, and a residue derived from a tetra- or higher functional branching agent [0004, 0021], that the dicarboxylic acid residue many include at least one residue derived from at least one compound selected from succinic acid, adipic acid, azelaic acid, sebacic acid, brassylic acid, and terephthalic acid [0030], and that the diol residue may include a residue derived from 1,4-butanediol [0032], which optionally reads on wherein said aliphatic-aromatic polyester is selected from poly(1,4-butylene adipate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate), poly(1,4-butylene sebacate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate), poly(1,4-butylene azelate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate), poly(1,4-butylene brassylate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate), poly(1,4-butylene succinate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate) as claimed.
Yeom does not teach a specific embodiment wherein said aliphatic-aromatic polyester is selected from the claimed group. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue to be derived from one compound selected from succinic acid, adipic acid, azelaic acid, sebacic acid, brassylic acid and one compound that is terephthalic acid, and to select Yeom’s diol residue to be a residue derived from 1,4-butanediol. The proposed modification would read on wherein said aliphatic-aromatic polyester is selected from poly(1,4-butylene adipate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate), poly(1,4-butylene sebacate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate), poly(1,4-butylene azelate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate), poly(1,4-butylene brassylate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate), poly(1,4-butylene succinate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate) as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing species of Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue and a species of Yeom’s diol residue that are suitable for Yeom’s biodegradable polyester resin and/or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Yeom teaches that the biodegradable polyester resin includes a dicarboxylic acid residue, a diol residue, and a residue derived from a tetra- or higher functional branching agent [0004, 0021], that the dicarboxylic acid residue many include at least one residue derived from at least one compound selected from succinic acid, adipic acid, azelaic acid, sebacic acid, brassylic acid, and terephthalic acid [0030], and that the diol residue may include a residue derived from 1,4-butanediol [0032]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 13, Yeom teaches a foam obtained from the biodegradable polyester resin [0020, 0022, 0058], and that the foam obtained from the biodegradable polyester resin may be a foaming sheet, a molding vessel, and a packing material [0058]. Yeom does not teach that biodegradable polyester resin or the foam are cross-linked, and they would not inherently be cross-lined. Yeom’s teachings therefore read on a foamed article comprising polyester according to claim 3, obtained by physical foaming, without cross-linking by chemical additives as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Yeom teaches that the biodegradable polyester resin includes a dicarboxylic acid residue, a diol residue, and a residue derived from a tetra- or higher functional branching agent [0004, 0021], that the dicarboxylic acid residue many include at least one residue derived from at least one compound selected from succinic acid, adipic acid, azelaic acid, sebacic acid, brassylic acid, and terephthalic acid [0030], and that the diol residue may include a residue derived from 1,4-butanediol [0032], which optionally reads on wherein said aliphatic-aromatic polyester is selected from poly(1,4-butyleen adipate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate), poly(1,4-butylene sebacate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate), poly(1,4-butylene azelate-co-1,4-butyleen terephthalate), poly(1,4-butylene brassylate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate), poly(1,4-butylene succinate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate) as claimed.
Yeom does not teach a specific embodiment wherein said aliphatic-aromatic polyester is selected from the claimed group. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue to be derived from one compound selected from succinic acid, adipic acid, azelaic acid, sebacic acid, brassylic acid and one compound that is terephthalic acid, and to select Yeom’s diol residue to be a residue derived from 1,4-butanediol such that the molar amount of Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue derived from one compound selected from succinic acid, adipic acid, azelaic acid, sebacic acid, brassylic acid is equal to the molar amount of Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue derived from one compound that is terephthalic acid. The proposed modification would read on wherein said aliphatic-aromatic polyester is selected from poly(1,4-butyleen adipate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate), poly(1,4-butylene sebacate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate), poly(1,4-butylene azelate-co-1,4-butyleen terephthalate), poly(1,4-butylene brassylate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate), poly(1,4-butylene succinate-co-1,4-butylene terephthalate) as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing species of Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue and a species of Yeom’s diol residue that are suitable for Yeom’s biodegradable polyester resin and/or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Yeom teaches that the biodegradable polyester resin includes a dicarboxylic acid residue, a diol residue, and a residue derived from a tetra- or higher functional branching agent [0004, 0021], that the dicarboxylic acid residue many include at least one residue derived from at least one compound selected from succinic acid, adipic acid, azelaic acid, sebacic acid, brassylic acid, and terephthalic acid [0030], and that the diol residue may include a residue derived from 1,4-butanediol [0032]. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)). Also, based on Yeom’s teachings that are explained above, Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue derived from one compound selected from succinic acid, adipic acid, azelaic acid, sebacic acid, brassylic acid and Yeom’s dicarboxylic acid residue derived from one compound that is terephthalic acid are equivalents known for the same purpose, which is that they are dicarboxylic acid residues used in a biodegradable polyester resin, and the most obvious amounts to try first for two ingredients that equivalents is to select equal amounts of the two ingredients. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art (MPEP 2144.06(I))."
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID KARST whose telephone number is (571)270-7732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/DAVID T KARST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights