DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 6/05/2026. Claims 6-8, 10-12 and 17-23 were cancelled. Claims 1-5, 9 and 13-16 are pending in the application.
This action is final.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A polymer blend consisting essentially of:
poly-DL-lactide at 75 to 84 wt.%;
poly-D-lactide at 4-8 wt.%; and
a thermoplastic elastomer being a polyether block amide (PEBA) at 12-17 wt.%.
Claim Interpretation
In view of the instant specification a poly-DL-lactide is interpreted as the resulting racemic mixture of L-D-lactides and D-lactides to produce the poly-DL-lactide, wherein this poly-DL-lactide includes predominantly L-lactide units relative to the D-lactide units of the polymer chains ([0010] and [0038] of USPG Pub. US2024/0093025).
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 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 1-5, 9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosca et al. (EP 2759569 A1) in view of Mohanty et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0361258 A1), as evidenced by Schmidt (US2017/0037241) for claim 9.
Regarding claim 1, Mosca et al. teach a polylactic acid base composition (which correspond to the polymer blend) comprising 70 to 95 wt.% of a polylactic acid compound, 4-25 wt.% of an aromatic-based copolyester having soft segments and 0.1-5 wt.% of a polybutylene terephthalate cyclic oligomer (claim 1, claim 4); wherein the polylactic acid compound is a racemic mixture in the form of their optical isomers L-lactic acid (PLLA) and D-lactic acid (PDLA) having a high purity, in particular more than 90 % of optical purity ([0021]-[0023]), which implies the polylactic acid compound comprises a mixture of poly-DL-lactide and poly-D-lactide, as defined in the USPG Publication of the present invention [0010]. Mosca et al. further teach 75.4 pbw PLLA, 5.67 pbw of PDLA, 10 pbw of PIBIFLEX SHD56 (thermoplastic elastomer), 3 pbw polybutylene terephthalate cyclic oligomer, 2 pbw Lotader Ax900, 5 pbw Talc 3CA (ultrafine talc nucleating / reinforcing agent from Luzenac) (example 2, composition C, [0086]). It is noted that Mosca et al. teach a range of 4-25 wt.% of an aromatic based copolyester having soft segments (thermoplastic elastomer) that overlaps with the claimed range of 12-17 wt%. Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any value within the claimed range of 12-17 wt. % because Mosca et al. disclose the content of the thermoplastic polyester as 4-25 wt.% can be used and it would be expected to have a reasonable expectation of success. Further, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges taught by Mosca et al.
Furthermore, Mosca et al. teach the aromatic-based copolyester having soft segments is represented by a thermoplastic polyester elastomer having hard polyester segments and soft segments including polyether or polyester and provide as examples a copolyether ester (TPC-ET), a copolyester ester (TCP-ES) and in the case the soft segments contains esters and ether linkages, the copolyester is referred as copolyester ether (TPC-EE) ([0027]-[0045]), wherein the aromatic-based copolyester serves as a toughening agent [0046] that improves properties such as elasticity, flexibility, impact strength, among others [0052].
Mosca et al. are silent on the thermoplastic elastomer is a polyether block amide.
In the same field of endeavor Mohanty et al. teach a poly (lactic acid) base based blend comprising a PLA resin and a thermoplastic elastomeric block copolymer (abstract), wherein the thermoplastic elastomer block copolymer contains a hard segment that imparts rigidity and/or toughness to the resulting polymer and a soft segment that provides elasticity to the resulting polymer. Mohanty et al. teach as examples of the thermoplastic elastomeric block copolymer a poly (ether amide) block copolymer [0065]-[0069] and polyether ester block copolymers containing polyester hard segments and polyether soft segment [0070], which are suitable to improve properties such as elasticity, toughness [0065]. In view of the similar function as toughening agent of these thermoplastic elastomer in a PLA based composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one known thermoplastic elastomer (poly (ether amide) block copolymer of Mohanty et al.) in place of another (polyester ether block copolymer of Mosca et al.) with the expected result of improving mechanical properties. (See MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
It is noted that this transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. MPEP 2111.03 [R-3], In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976) (emphasis in original). Mosca et al. teach the cyclic oligomer as a processing aid [0047], Lotader Ax900 as a compatibilizer [0087] and talc as a filler (reinforcing agent, [0086]). The instant specification indicates the claimed composition can contain any one of or a combination of a filler including a mineral filler, glass fibers or combination thereof, a compatibilizer and a processing aid ([0026]-[0029] USPG Pub. US2024/0093025), therefore the cyclic oligomer, Lotader Ax900 and talc are considered conventional additives that would not materially affect the novel properties and it would still meet the consisting essentially language.
Regarding claim 2, Mosca et al. teach 70 to 95 wt.% of a polylactic acid compound (claim 1) or 79 to 90 wt.% of the polylactic acid compound (claim 4).
Mosca et al. in view of Mohanty et al. and the claims differ in that Mosca et al. in view of Mohanty et al. do not teach the exact claimed ranges for the combination of poly-DL-lactide and the poly-D-lactide as recited in the instant claims. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Mosca et al. in view of Mohanty et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges (no less than 80 wt.%) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Mosca et al. teach the polylactic acid compound is biodegradable and biocompatible polyester derived from 100% renewable resources [0021], in particular from corn, as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Mosca et al. teach an aromatic-based copolyester having soft segments as the thermoplastic elastomer, wherein polylactic acid compound as a racemic mixture of their optical isomers L-lactic acid (PLLA) and D-lactic acid (PDLA) having a high purity, in particular more than 90 % of optical purity ([0021]-[0023]), which implies the poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) contains predominantly L lactide units relative to D-lactide units by wt.%, as disclosed by the USPG Publication of the present invention ([0010] and [0038]).
Regarding claim 5, Mosca et al. teach the poly-L-lactide (which correspond to the poly-DL-lactide) and the poly-D-lactide have a high purity, in particular more than 90 % of optical purity ([0021]-[0023]), which overlaps with the claimed range ( no less than 99 %). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Mosca et al.
Regarding claim 9, Mosca et al. are silent on the polymer blend, wherein the remaining wt.% is the poly-DL- lactide. However, Mosca et al. teach compositions wherein the poly-L-lactide is in higher amounts and the poly-D- lactide is a minor component [examples 0086]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an excess of poly-DL-lactide to form an stereocomplex polylactic compound that results in an increase of the crystallization rate, which imparts sufficient heat resistance to molded articles ([0009] and [0009] of Schmidt).
Regarding claims 13-15, Mosca et al. teach a polymer-based composition further comprises glass or natural derived fibers reinforcing materials [0051], talc [0086] , thereby reading on the filler of instant claims 13 and 14, a polybutylene terephthalate cyclic oligomer which serves as a processing aid ([0047]-[0048]) and a terpolymer of ethylene, methyl acrylate and glycidyl methacrylate (AX900 BY Arkema) which acts as a compatibilizer ([0086]-[0087]), thereby reading on the compatibilizer of claims 13 and 15.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mosca et al. (EP 2759569 A1) in view of Mohanty et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0361258 A1) as set forth above for claims 1-5, 9 and 13-15 and further in view of Riscanu et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0184672 A1).
Mosca et al. in view of Mohanty et al. teach the polymer blend according to claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 16, Mosca et al. teach a poly-lactic based composition that is suitable for manufacturing a molded article which superior heat resistance and impact strength [0012].
Mosca et al. in view of Mohanty et al. are silent on the processing aid as recited in the instant claim.
However, Riscanu et al. teach a poly(lactic-acid) resin composition having elevated impact resistance and/or elevated heat deflection temperature and an article made from the composition, wherein the composition comprises an additive (abstract, [0004], claim 1) including a lubricant is ethylene bis-stearamide ([0018], [0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ethylene-bis-stearamide as taught by Riscanu et al. since it is well known in the industry that a lubricant can be used to improve processability.
Claims 1-5, 9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noordegraaf et al. (JP 2014-530933 A and/or US PG Pub. 2014-023577 A) as evidenced by Coupin (US PG Pub. 2017/0037242 A1) and Naito et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0177078) in view of Mohanty et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0361258 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Noordegraaf et al. teach a composition comprising a poly-D-lactic acid (PDLA) polymer and a poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) polymer, the optical purity of at least the PDLA or the PLLA being at least 95% (claim 1), wherein the PDLA being present in an amount of at most 10 wt.%, preferably between 4 and 7 wt. % (claims 2-3), the PLLA being present in an amount of between 65 and 85 wt. % relative to the compound total weight (claim 4). Noordegraaf et al. further teach the composition also comprises at least one polymer such as Ecoflex (a polybutylene adipate-co terephthalate, PBAT) in an amount of at most 30 wt.% (claim 5 and claim 17), wherein Ecoflex (BASF) is defined as a polybutylene-adipate terephthalate copolymer which correspond to the thermoplastic elastomer as evidenced by Naito et al. ([0061], [0169]:(B2-2) and claim 4), wherein the ranges taught by Noordegraaf et al. overlap with the claimed ranges, thereby a prima facie case of obviousness being established. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, Noordegraaf et al. teach a composition comprising 72 wt.% of Ingeo ™ 6201D (Natureworks), 4 wt% of Synterra ® PDLA 0710, 20 wt.% of Ecoflex (BASF), 4% of DOA (Sigma), wherein Ingeo ™ 6201D is a PLLA polymer containing 1.4% of D-lactide units ([0045], Table 2), as evidenced by Coupin (Table 5, [0187]).
Noordegraaf et al. are silent on the thermoplastic elastomer is a polyether block amide.
In the same field of endeavor Mohanty et al. teach a poly (lactic acid) base based blend comprising a PLA resin and a thermoplastic elastomeric block copolymer (abstract), wherein the thermoplastic elastomer block copolymer contains a hard segment that imparts rigidity and/or toughness to the resulting polymer and a soft segment that provides elasticity to the resulting polymer. Mohanty et al. teach as examples of the thermoplastic elastomeric block copolymer a poly (ether amide) block copolymer [0065]-[0069] which improve properties such as elasticity, toughness [0065], thermoplastic elastomers containing polybutylene terephthalate and polyether glycol segments [0071]. Considering PBAT ECOFLEX and poly (ether block) amide copolymer are both known thermoplastic elastomer materials and PLA toughening polymers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one known thermoplastic elastomer (poly (ether amide) block copolymer of Mohanty et al.) in place of another (ECOFLEX) with the expected result of improving mechanical properties. (See MPEP 2143 (I)(B) .
Noordegraaf et al. teach the composition comprises at least one filler, polymers such us PBAT Ecoflex which is a copolyester that reads on the thermoplastic elastomer as discussed above; and a plasticizer (claims 5 and 7). It is noted that the instant specification indicates the claimed composition can contain any one of or a combination of a filler, a compatibilizer and a processing aid ([0026]-[0029] USPG Pub. US2024/0093025), therefore the filler and plasticizer of Noordegraft et al. are considered conventional additives that would not materially affect the novel properties and it would still meet the consisting essentially language.
Regarding claim 2, Noordegraaf et al. in view of Mohanty et al. teach the composition comprises 4-7 wt.%, at most 10 wt.% of PDLA (claims 2-3) and 65-85 wt.% of PLLA (P-DL-lactide) (claim 4).
Noordegraaf et al. in view of Mohanty et al. and the claims differ in that Noordegraaf et al. in view of Mohanty et al. do not teach the exact claimed ranges for the combination of poly-DL-lactide and the poly-D-lactide as recited in the instant claims.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Noordegraaf et al.in view of Mohanty et al. overlap the instantly claimed ranges (no less than 80 wt.%) and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Noordegraaf et al. teach the polylactic acid is produced from milk products or from for example maize. Lactic acid is the monomer of which polylactic acid is composed, and this monomer exists in two stereoisomers, viz. L-lactic acid (dextrorotatory lactic acid) and D-lactic acid (levorotatory lactic acid) [0002], thereby reading on the two stereoisomers derived from a plant or a naturally organic matter.
Regarding claim 4, Noordegraaf et al teach the purity of the PLLA is at least 95%, which implies the PLLA includes predominantly L-lactide units and the D-lactide units is a minor component (See USPG Publication of the present invention [0010] and [0038]). Noordegraaf et al. further teach a composition comprising 72 wt.% of Ingeo ™ 6201D (Natureworks), 4 wt% of Synterra ® PDLA 0710, 20 wt.% of Ecoflex (BASF), wherein Ingeo ™ 6201D is a PLLA polymer containing 1.4% of D-lactide units ([0045], Table 2), thereby reading on the P-DL-lactide of instant claim 4, as evidenced by Coupin (Table 5, [0187] of US PG Pub. 2017/0037242 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Noordegraaf et al. teach in one embodiment the optical purity of PDLA is at least 99.5% which lead to good results in terms of crystallization rate [0015], as require by the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Noordegraaf et al. in view of Mohanty et al. are silent on the polymer blend, wherein any remaining wt.% is the poly-DL- lactide.
However, Noordegraaf et al. teach compositions wherein the poly-L-lactide is in higher amounts and the poly-D- lactide (PDLA) is a minor component (examples table 2, claims 3-4). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an excess of poly-DL-lactide (PLLA) to form an stereocomplex polylactic compound that results in an increase of the crystallization rate, which imparts sufficient heat resistance to molded articles ([0015]-[0017]).
Regarding claims 13-14, Noordegraaf et al. teach the composition comprises a filler including talc, chalk, kaolin [0019], as required by the instant claim.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noordegraaf et al. (JP 2014-530933 A and/or US PG Pub. 2014-023577 A) in view of Mohanty et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0361258 A1) as set forth above for claims 1-5, 9 and 13-14 and further in view of Riscanu et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0184672 A1).
Noordegraaf et al. et al. in view of Mohanty et al. teach the polymer blend according to claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 16, Noordegraaf et al. et al. in view of Mohanty et al. teach a poly-lactic based composition with improved thermal stability and higher crystallization rate that is suitable for manufacturing a molded article in applications such as film blowing, thermoforming or injection molding ([0003]-[0008]).
Noordegraaf et al. et al. in view of Mohanty et al. are silent on the processing aid as recited in the instant claim.
However, Riscanu et al. teach a poly(lactic-acid) resin composition having elevated impact resistance and/or elevated heat deflection temperature and an article made from the composition, wherein the composition comprises an additive (abstract, [0004], claim 1) including a lubricant is ethylene bis-stearamide ([0018], [0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ethylene-bis-stearamide as taught by Riscanu et al. since it is well known in the industry that a lubricant can be used to improve processability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended claim 1 to recite “A polymer blend consisting essentially of the three core component in their specific, narrow weight percentage rates”. Applicant states that the phrase “consisting essentially of ” excludes the prior art composition (Mosca et al. and Noordegraaf et al.) which include other components that would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the blend.”
In response, attention is drawn to the rejection over Mosca et al. in view of Mohanty et al. as set forth above, wherein Mosca et al. includes additional components such as a cyclic oligomer and talc. However the cyclic oligomer is disclosed as a processing aid and the talc as a reinforcing agent (mineral filler). Given that the original claims 13-16 contemplate the inclusion of standard additives such as filler, compatibilizers and processing aids, therefore talc and the cyclic oligomer of Mosca et al. in view of Mohanty et al. are considered conventional additives that would not materially affect the novel properties and it would still meet the consisting essentially language.
Regarding the composition of Noordegraaf et al., Applicant states that Noordegraaf utilizes a copolyester elastomer (Ecoflex) which is different from the claimed polyether block amide. In response, attention is drawn to the rejection as set forth above, wherein Noordegraaf et al. as evidenced by Naito teach “PBAT ECOFLEX” as a polybutylene-adipate terephthalate copolymer thermoplastic elastomer. Therefore, it would be obvious to substitute one known thermoplastic elastomer in place of another to improved mechanical properties (See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OLGA L. DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, JOSEPH DEL SOLE can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/OLGA LUCIA DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
.
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights