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 .
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.
Claims 3, 12, 13 and 17 are 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.
Claims 3 and 17 recite “wherein the starch and zein are present in a ratio of about 1:1 to about 8:1”. The basis for this ratio is unclear. For example, it is unclear if the ratio of starch to zein (starch: zein) is about 1:1 to about 8:1; or, does the ratio mean starch and zein to the thermoplastic composition (starch + zein: thermoplastic composition) is about 1:1 to about 8:1. The claims are considered indefinite and are thereby rejected. Therefore, claims 3 and 17 are indefinite and thereby rejected. For purposes of examination, the claims will be interpreted as ratio of starch to zein of about 1:1 to about 8:1.
Claim 12 and 13 recite the limitation “the modulus” in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Further, it is unclear how “the modulus” is being measured, because the instant specification does not provide any test method for determining the modulus. It is well known in the art that modulus is a measurement of stiffness by calculating the ratio of stress (force/area) to strain (proportional deformation). The instant specification provides some guidance on the measurement of mechanical properties, in the statement: “The product was compressed into ~0.5 mm thickness sheets using a hot press (1200 N, 10 min) and cut into standard tensile test specimens for mechanical property characterization.” (Instant specification, [0093]). Further, paragraph [0096] discuses tensile properties but does not mention if these tensile properties include the modulus. As such, the test method for determining modulus is not explained and the claims 12 and 13 are considered indefinite and thereby rejected. For purposes of examination, the modulus will be interpreted as Young’s modulus.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
A corn-based thermoplastic composition comprising:
about 40 wt.% to about 80 wt.% of a corn-derived material comprising starch and zein;
about 0.1 wt.% to about 20 wt.% of a reinforcement material comprising cellulose nanofibrils, lignin;
about 1 wt.% to about 50 wt.% of a plasticizer.
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) 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, 3-8, 11-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 1299238 A; English Machine Translation provided herewith) in view of Nelson (US 20180118936 (A1).
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.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches biodegradable protein/starch thermoplastic composition (Abstract, ¶17,18) comprising plant-derived proteins including zein (¶ 19) and corn starch, and waxy corn starch (¶ 20). The total protein/starch content in the thermoplastic composition is preferably about 40-65% by weight (¶ 25), 10-40% by weight of natural lignocellulose fibers (¶ 69, 2), and the plasticizer is about 5-25% by weight (¶ 26).
Wang does not particularly teach the thermoplastic composition exemplifying a corn-derived material comprising starch and zein.
However, Wang teaches the plant derived proteins include zein and corn starch (¶19, 20). As such, Wang teaches zein and corn starch with “sufficient specificity” that one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed combination. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention would have found it “obvious to try” zein and corn starch as the teaching represents a finite number of identified, predictable combinations. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the corn starch with zein as taught by Wang in the thermoplastic composition, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Wang does not teach the “nano” sized fibrils.
Nelson teaches a polymer composition comprising a polymer with nanocellulose wherein the polymer is polylactide which comes from corn sugars wherein PLA resins are capable of degrading rapidly under composting conditions to regenerate carbon dioxide and the ability to compost these materials can provide more disposal options for these resins when compared to most other organic polymers and as a result, PLA resins are finding uses in a variety of packaging applications including a variety of rigid and semi-rigid articles such as clamshell containers, deli and other food service trays and bottles (Abstract), ¶ 4).
Nelson offers the motivation of using a lignin-coated cellulose nanocrystals due to their ability to be dispersed in PLA by high-torque melt mixing, extrusion, or an energy-intensive mixing step, and can act as nucleating agents for the PLA matrix in composites. Without being limited by theory, it is believed that the lignin coating on the nanocellulose helps in both initial dispersion and also avoids re-aggregation of nanocellulose in the polymer matrix and the presence of lignin on the nanocellulose surface may allow PLA chains to fold onto the nanocellulose surface through better compatibility and further more improved interaction between lignin and PLA may also allow efficient load transfer between nanocellulose and the polymer matrix (¶ 40).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use “nano” sized fibrils Nelson in the polymer of Wang, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches biodegradable protein/starch thermoplastic compositions (Abstract, ¶17,18) comprising plant-derived proteins including zein (¶ 19) and corn starch. Wang further teaches a preferred mixed content of starch and protein at about 20-50 % by weight (¶ 20) thereby reading on the claimed ratio of about 1:1 to about 8:1. For example, if the mixed content of Wang had 50% starch and 50% protein, then the ratio of starch to zein/protein would be 1:1.
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches foam is composed of a protein/starch composition containing natural cellulose fibers, which consists of natural lignocellulose fibers (¶ 69, 2) thereby reading on the combination of cellulose nanofibrils and lignin.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the foam is composed of a protein/starch composition containing natural cellulose fibers, which consists of 10-40% by weight of natural lignocellulose fibers (¶ 69, 2).
Wang do not teach the exact same range as required by the instant claim 5.
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 range taught by Wang (10 to 40 wt%) overlap the instantly claimed ranges (about 1 to about 10 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 6, Wang teaches the typical plasticizers that can be used in the compositions of the present invention includes such as glycerol, ethylene glycol (¶ 26).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the content of the plasticizer is about 5-25% by weight (¶ 26).
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches modifiers can be used to improve the processing properties thereby reading on the claimed processing aid wherein the modifier is present in the amount of about 5-20% by weight of protein/starch/natural cellulose fiber compositions (¶ 41) which overlaps with the claimed range of about 0.01 to about 10 wt%.
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches the articles made from protein or starch plastics (¶ 7, 8, 39).
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches the Young modulus of the composition (Table 1) replicated below, wherein the Young’s modulus is above 50 Mpa, thereby reading on the claimed range of at least about 50 MPa.
Regarding claim 13, Wang teaches in Table 1 Sample 5 a composition without the cellulose (wood fibers) reinforcement material. The Sample 5 has a Young’s modulus of 14.34 (Table 1). In Table 2, Sample 4, has the same ingredients in the same amount and also includes Natural Wood Fibers (reinforcement material). The Sample 4 in Table 2 has a Young’s Modulus of 161.87. The increase in Young’s Modulus from 14.34 to 161.87 reads on the increase by at least about 100% at required by the instant claim 13.
PNG
media_image1.png
373
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
309
635
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
300
653
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Wang teaches the protein-based plastics can be prepared by injection molding, extrusion molding (¶ 5, 18).
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches the protein/starch thermoplastic compositions containing natural cellulose fibers can be prepared by different methods involving mixing the components and extruding them to form particles, processing the particles by injection molding or extrusion molding using a foam die. Twin-screw or single-screw extruders, reverse twin-screw extruder with a foam film head, and extrusion functions for foamed plastics (¶ 18).
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches biodegradable protein/starch thermoplastic compositions (Abstract, ¶17,18) comprising plant-derived proteins including zein (¶ 19) and corn starch. Wang further teaches a preferred mixed content of starch and protein at about 20-50 % by weight (¶ 20) thereby reading on the claimed ratio of about 1:1 to about 8:1. For example, if the mixed content of Wang had 50% starch and 50% protein, then the ratio of starch to zein/protein would be 1:1.
Regarding claim 18, Wang teaches the reinforcing material (¶ 11) composition containing natural cellulose fibers which consists of natural lignocellulose fibers (¶ 69, 2) thereby reading on the combination of cellulose nanofibrils and lignin.
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches the plasticizers include glycerol, ethylene glycol (¶ 26).
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches modifiers can be used to improve the processing properties thereby reading on the processing aid wherein the amount of the modifiers are about 5-20% by weight of protein/starch/natural cellulose fiber compositions (¶ 41) which overlaps with the claimed range of about 0.01 to about 5 wt%.
Regarding the overlapping ranges, 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 range taught by Wang (5 to 20 wt%) overlap the instantly claimed ranges (0.01 to 5 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.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 1299238 A; English Machine Translation provided herewith) in view of Nelson (US 20180118936 (A1) as set forth above for claims 1 and 15, and further in view of Lim (US 5320669 (A)).
Wang in view of Nelson teaches the thermoplastic composition of claim 1 and the method of claim 15 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Wang in view of Nelson does not teach the corn-derived material comprises cornmeal.
Regarding claim 2 and 16, Lim teaches thermoplastic compositions for making extruded or molded articles such as sheets and films (Abstract, col. 1 line 11) wherein the thermoplastic composition comprises starch and protein (Abstract) and wherein corn meal is the preferred material (Example 1). Lim offers the motivation of choosing corn meal due to it being biodegradable and edible (col. 6 line 65). In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the corn meal of Lim in the thermoplastic composition of Wang in view of Nelson, thereby arriving at the instant invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 1299238 A) in view of Nelson (US 20180118936 A1) as set forth above for claim 8, and further in view of Ge (US 20180002451 A1).
Wang in view of Nelson teaches the thermoplastic composition of claim 8 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference wherein Wang teaches modifiers can be used to improve the processing properties.
However, Wang does not particularly teach the modifier/processing aid comprises an organic acid.
Ge teaches starch foams (title) and films especially for use in packaging materials (¶ 167), wherein the foams use processing aids such as blowing agents comprising stearic acid, citric acid, or an acid and a base or sodium bicarbonate and citric acid (¶ 42) thereby reading on the processing aid comprising an organic acid. Ge teaches that blowing agents/processing aids can be used as the gas phase to form the foam having the desired amount of rigidity or flexibility [0145-0146]. In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the organic acid of Ge as a modifier/processing aid of Wang in view of Nelson, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 1299238 A in in view of Nelson (US 2018118936 A1) as set forth above for claims 1 and 15, and further in view of Owens (US 3843753 A).
Wang in view of Nelson teaches the thermoplastic composition of claim 1 as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Wang in view of Nelson are silent on the composition further comprising a thermal initiator.
Owens teaches thermoplastic compositions (Title) having high impact resistance and suitable for use as a film (col. 2 line 41), wherein the thermoplastic composition comprises thermal initiators such as peroxides (col. 9 line 45). Owens offer the motivation of choosing thermal initiators for thermoplastic compositions due to their ability to initiate polymerization reactions (col. 9 line 43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the thermal initiator of Owens in the thermoplastic composition of Wang in view of Nelson, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMADAS SR SATHUNURU whose telephone number is (571)272-1687. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM to 3:30PM.
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, Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571)-270-7026. 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.
/RAMADAS SATHUNURU/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764