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 I (claims 1-10 & 16) in the reply filed on 07/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cederblad et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0183329).
Regarding claim 1: Cederblad discloses a biodegradable net comprising a polymeric composition, see for example (the Equivalent Abstract).
Cederblad may not disclose the specific of the claimed used composition of the polymeric materials and ratios as claimed to be:
a polymer selected from the group consisting of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), copolymer of 1,4-butanediol, succinic acid and adipic acid (PBSA), polybutylene succinate (PBS) and mixtures thereof;
at least one functional additive selected from the group consisting of Pentaerythrol tetrakis (3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)propionate), Octadecyl 3-(3,5-di- tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)propionate Tris(2,4-di-tert-butylphenyl)phosphite, 1,3,5-Trimethyl- 2,4,6-tris-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxybenzyl)benzene, 2,4-Bis-o-cresol, 2,2'-dihydroxy-4,4'-dimethoxy-benzophenon, Ethylene bis-(oxyethylene) bis-(3-(5-tert-butyl- 4-hydroxy-m-tolyl)propionate), Octadecyl propionohydrazide, Beeswax, Carnauba wax, Candelilla wax, Sumac wax (Japanese wax), Berry wax, Paraffin wax, Silicone and its derivatives, and mixtures thereof; and
a nucleant selected from the group consisting of Boron Nitride, Hydroxyhepatite, Zinc Stearate, Nanocrystalline Cellulose, Montmorillonite nano clay, Single wall carbon nanotube, Multi wall carbon nanotube, Cyanuric acid, Fatty acids, Fatty acid esters, Fatty acid amines, Fatty acid metal salts, pentaerythritol, di-pentaerythritol, urea derivatives, sorbitol-based compounds, sodium benzoate and mixtures thereof.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cederblad’s polymeric composition to have the claimed specific composition as stated above, since it has been held that to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 2: Cederblad does not disclose the polymer comprises at least of 1,4-butanediol, succinic acid and adipic acid (PBSA) and polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cederblad’s polymeric composition to have the claimed specific composition with succinic acid and adipic acid (PBSA) and polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), since it has been held that to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3: Cederblad does not disclose that the polymer comprises polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) and said polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) is present in an amount by weight relative to the amount of total polymers in the polymeric composition between 10 and 90%.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cederblad’s polymeric composition to have the claimed specific composition with polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) and said polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) is present in an amount by weight relative to the amount of total polymers in the polymeric composition between 10 and 90%, since it has been held that to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4: Cederblad does not suggest the exact claimed plasticizer to be selected from the group consisting of poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG), acetyl-tri-n- butyl citrate (ATBC), isosorbide diester (ISE), sorbitol, glycerol, Acetylated monoglycerides, Epoxidized soybean oil (ESBO), Triethyl citrate (TEC), tri (ethylene glycol) bis (2-ethylDocket No.: 20022/70039 hexanoate) (TEG-EH), Tributyl citrate (TBC), 1,3,2,4-dibenzylidene sorbitol, 1,3-p- methylbenzylidene-2,4-benzylidenesorbitol, bis (stearylureide) hexane, 1,3,2,4-di (p- methylbenzylidene) sorbitol, 1,3,2,4-dibenzylidenesorbitol, and mixtures thereof.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cederblad’s composition to have the claimed specific composition as stated above, since it has been held that to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 5: Cederblad does not suggest that the net comprising at least 80% by weight of the total weight of the net, the polymer selected from the group consisting of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), copolymer of 1,4-butanediol, succinic acid and adipic acid (PBSA), polybutylene succinate (PBS) or mixtures thereof.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cederblad’s net to have at least 80% by weight of the total weight of the net, the polymer selected from the group consisting of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA), copolymer of 1,4-butanediol, succinic acid and adipic acid (PBSA), polybutylene succinate (PBS) or mixtures thereof, since it has been held that to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6: Cederblad does not disclose that the nucleant is selected from the group consisting of Boron Nitride, Montmorillonite Nano Clay, pentaeryth di-pentaerythritol and di-pentaerythritol.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cederblad’s net to have the nucleant is selected from the group consisting of Boron Nitride, Montmorillonite Nano Clay, pentaeryth di-pentaerythritol and di-pentaerythritol, since it has been held that to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 7: Cederblad does not disclose that the net the at least one functional additive is selected from the group consisting of Beeswax, Carnauba Wax, Candelilla Wax, Sumac Wax (Japanese wax).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cederblad’s net to disclose at least one functional additive is selected from the group consisting of Beeswax, Carnauba Wax, Candelilla Wax, Sumac Wax (Japanese wax), since it has been held that to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8: Cedeblad does not suggest that at least one viscosity modifier and/or one compatibilizer selected from the group consisting of DCP dicumyl peroxide, TBPB of tert. Butylperoxybenzoate, Hexamethylene diisocyanate (HMDI), Multifunctionalized styrene-co-glycidyl methacrylate oligomer (Joncryl®), Triglycidyl isocyanurate (TGIC), Benzoyl peroxide (BPO), and Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cederblad’s net to disclose at least one viscosity modifier and/or one compatibilizer selected from the group consisting of DCP dicumyl peroxide, TBPB of tert. Butylperoxybenzoate, Hexamethylene diisocyanate (HMDI), Multifunctionalized styrene-co-glycidyl methacrylate oligomer (Joncryl®), Triglycidyl isocyanurate (TGIC), Benzoyl peroxide (BPO), and Methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), since it has been held that to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9: Cederblad does not disclose a viscosity modifier and/or a compatibilizer selected from the group consisting of dicumyl peroxide, TBPB of tert. Butylperoxybenzoate, multifunctionalized styrene-co-glycidyl methacrylate oligomer (Joncryl®) and mixtures thereof.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cederblad’s net with a viscosity modifier and/or a compatibilizer selected from the group consisting of dicumyl peroxide, TBPB of tert. Butylperoxybenzoate, multifunctionalized styrene-co-glycidyl methacrylate oligomer (Joncryl®) and mixtures thereof, since it has been held that to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 10: Cederblad does not suggest that the polymeric composition does not comprise PLA (polylactide acid). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cederblad’s net by avoiding the use of PLA, since it has been held that to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 16: Cederblad discloses a method, comprising using the biodegradable net according for packaging or as a medical or agricultural containment net, see for example (“packaging netting such as for onions and turkey bags, agricultural netting”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731