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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “selecting a biodegradable aliphatic polyesters” in lines 2, 4 and 6. For clarity purposes, Applicant is advised to recite “selecting a biodegradable aliphatic polyester”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claims 1-8 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishikawa et al. (PG Pub. 2015/0099836).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa et al. teach a biodegradable string trimmer line comprising at least one biodegradable aliphatic polyester produced from diacids selected from adipic acid and succinic acid and diol monomers including ethylene glycol and butanediol wherein the polymer composition is soil biodegradable or water biodegradable [Abstract, 0030, 0032].
Regarding claims 2-3, the composition further comprises a plasticizer which is an ester based lubricant [Abstract and 0048].
Regarding claims 4-6, The total plasticizer in the composition is in the claimed range [Abstract].
Regarding claim 7, Ishikawa et al. teach a method for producing a soil or water biodegradable string trimmer line comprising selecting a biodegradable aliphatic polyester having diacid and diol monomers, drying (pelletized) the biodegradable aliphatic polyester, extruding the biodegradable aliphatic polyester through an extruder line having a barrel and an extruder die with an extruder die opening with a cross-section (twin screw extruder taught) and collecting the extruded biodegradable string trimmer line in a take up reel (rolled up) [0030-0031, 0040-0041].
Regarding claim 8, the cross-section of the extruder die opening is circle and ellipse, a polygon such as triangle, quadrilateral and pentagon, a star or the like [0044].
Regarding claim 11, diacids selected from adipic acid and succinic acid [0030].
Regarding claim 12, diol monomers including ethylene glycol and butanediol [0030].
Regarding claims 13-14, the composition further comprises a plasticizer which is an ester based lubricant [Abstract and 0048].
Regarding claims 15-17, The total plasticizer in the composition is in the claimed range [Abstract].
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (PG Pub. 2015/0099836) in view of Prouix et al. (US Pat. 6,910,277).
Regarding claim 9, Ishikawa et al. are silent regarding the claimed spirals and multiple intertwined strands. However, Prouix et al. teach a trimmer line comprising spirals and multiple intertwined strands in order to provide noise attenuation and durability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the spirals and multiple intertwined strands of Prouix et al. in Ishikawa et al. in order to provide noise attenuation and durability and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (PG Pub. 2015/0099836) in view of Hayden et al. (US Pat. 3,036,334).
Regarding claim 10, Ishikawa et al. teach the melt temperatures of the biodegradable aliphatic polyester is maintained in the claimed range. Ishikawa et al. are silent regarding the claimed extruder die and barrel temperature. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the extruder die and barrel temperatures given the melt temperature taught and in order to affect the fiber properties as is known in the art. Ishikawa et al. are silent regarding the claimed extruder line pressure. However, Hayden et al. teach a pressure to the spinning means of 300-2500 psi in order to affect the uniformity of the polymer melt and extrusion quality and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed extruder line pressure given the teachings of Hayden et al. and use it in Ishikawa et al. in order to affect the uniformity of the polymer melt and extrusion quality and arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Ishikawa discloses a polymer that contains primarily L-lactic acid and/or D-lactic acid and may contain other components other than lactic acid and Applicant argues claim 1 claims a trimmer line that consists of an aliphatic polyester. Claim 1 does not recite a trimmer line that “consists of” an aliphatic polyester. Claim 1 recites language of “comprising”. Ishikawa teaches a trimmer line that comprises an aliphatic polyester. Paragraph 0030 states “The biodegradable aromatic-aliphatic polyester resin (C) may be made by introducing an aromatic ring between aliphatic chains to reduce crystallinity. It may be prepared by condensing an aromatic dicarboxylic acid component, an aliphatic dicarboxylic acid component and an aliphatic diol component. The aromatic dicarboxylic acid component may be isophthalic acid, terephthalic acid or 2,6-naphthalenedicarboxylic acid. The aliphatic dicarboxylic acid component may be succinic acid, adipic acid, suberic acid, sebacic acid, or dodecanedioic acid. The aliphatic dial component may be ethylene glycol, 1,4-butanediol or 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol. It is possible that two kinds each of the aromatic dicarboxylic acid component, the aliphatic dicarboxylic acid component and aliphatic diol component are contained.”. This also proves the trimmer line of Ishikawa is also biodegradable. Even if Ishikawa teaches other components, the trimmer line of Ishikawa reads on the present claim language. Applicant is invited to amend the claim language over the cited art.
Art not Used in Rejection but Relevant
JP2002105750 a monofilament for mowing comprising a plasticizer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789