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 .
Response to Arguments
In their response dated 8/27/2026 applicants amended the claim to recite that the aliphatic polyester comprises ring opening polymerization of lactide monomer, aliphatic aromatic polyester is a prepolymer of comonomers comprising diol and dicarboxylic acid, the filler is added before polycondensation, and the dynamic viscosity is 7000-15000 poise.
With respect to the amendment to the specification – Applicants’ amendment is accepted without additional documentation. While applicants changed the type of viscosity, the specification also discloses apparatus which is used to measure the viscosity, which supports the amendment.
With respect to the amendment – other than narrowing the viscosity of the composition all amendments to the claims are process limitations wherein the claims themselves are composition claims. Patentable weight is given to the product and not to the process by which it is obtained. Consequently, the process limitations do not carry patentable weight with respect to the process itself but depending on the claim do impart structural limitation to the components of the composition. Unless specific compounds are claimed aliphatic polylactic ester can be formed by either ring opening polymerization or condensation of lactic acid resulting in the same generic polymer. Aliphatic-aromatic polyester comprises diol and dicarboxylic acid components which, by definition, both are required to make a polyester. The aliphatic-aromatic polyester does not have to be a prepolymer but a completely polymerized polyester, since claim allows for use of all monomers.
Addition of filler before polycondensation is also process step and polycondensation is not required process for any of the two polymers listed within the bounds of claim 1.
With respect to the properties of the polyester resin, prepared from the composition, it is actually not clear if these properties are attributed to the polyester resin or composition itself because the composition comprises polyester and inorganic filler, and claims are directed to polyester resin. Furthermore, the properties of the dependent claims are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The examples in Table 1 disclose specific polyesters in combination with very specific fillers. These include PLA/TiO2, PBAT/CNC/SiO2, PBAT/CaCO3, PBAT/TiO2 (examples 1-5). Instant specification provides no showing that any aliphatic aromatic polyester or any PLA combined with any filler as well as other components encompassed by the term comprising would provide the same result.
In previous office action the examiner requested clarification regarding the metal content. The examiner should have also stated that claim 5 depends on claim 1, which does not require metals at all. That is why there was a lack of clarity. Based on the applicant’s response to this inquiry, it should be noted that claim 2 discloses silica, wherein silane is not a metal but a metalloid exhibiting properties of both metal and non-metal. For lack of better word, it is an intermediate.
In their arguments the applicants stated that Coszach does not disclose the specific combination as recited in claim 1 and lists optional additives which may be added during polycondensation. Applicants are correct, however attacking reference alone is not viewed as properly addressing grounds of rejection, when the rejection is over a combination of references. Specifically, Nyun was utilized to provide for type and content of fillers, in order to achieve a very specific results, which in this case would be optical transparency. Obtaining transparency is the motivation of why inorganic fillers of Nyun can be utilized and in what amounts. Applicants did not argue the reasoning behind combining the references. Furthermore, the examiner would like to stress that the step when the filler is added does not carry patentable weight because the step is a process step and does not limit the composition itself.
Applicants further argue that Nyun or Koyama blend silica with polymerized polyester (PLA or PBAT) however, that is not why Nyun or Koyama were utilized. Again, applicants did not argue the grounds of rejection.
Applicants further argues the advantages of adding the filler before polycondensation, however, such cannot be properly determined based on the examples alone. The applicants change several variables at a time. Example 5 discloses PBAT/silica wherein silica is utilized in having D50 of 0.5 while C. Ex. 1 uses silica with D50 of 1.5, which means that these are two different silicas. Their surface area is different, and their amounts are different. The amount alone will affect viscosity of the composition which is a well-established knowledge in the art. Ex. 5 and C.Ex. 1 are probably the only two examples that could be compared if exactly the same components were utilized, in the same amount wherein the addition of the filler is done in a different time (before or after condensation) even then the applicants should claim process of making the composition and not the composition itself.
Furthermore, the PLA and PBAT of instant invention are specific polymers wherein PLA is based on specifically L-lactide ring opening polymerization to obtain a prepolymer, however there is no indication what the molecular weight of the prepolymer is. Aliphatic-aromatic polyester was specifically formed from terephthalic acid, adipic acid, and butanediol. The polycondensation of the PBAT as disclosed on page 54 of the instant invention appears to go to completion such that the molecular weight of the PBAT is 60,000 and viscosity of 9800 poise. It’s still not clear which viscosity it is since the applicants amended only one paragraph.
The description of CE1 – CE3 states that the filler was added after polycondensation however, this is not the only aspect of the examples that changed. CE2 does not appear to show any filler and CE3 is not the same as ex. 2 because it does not contain CMC. Again, each one of the fillers has different surface area , different amount and therefore different viscosity which in turn affect the properties.
With respect to the reference of Gui and teaching of the properties in instant claims 5-8 and 10-13, the examiner ties all the properties exactly to the limitations encompassed by claim 1. According to claim 1 the composition comprises one polyester with is polyester having lactide as one unit or any aliphatic-aromatic polyester that comprises at least one diol and at least one diacid (that is all that claim requires) combined with a filler which is utilized in an amount of 3-10 wt.%. The polymer based on broadest reasonable interpretation can have any molecular weight and the viscosity is that of a composition not the polyester resin. With use of term “comprising” viscosity can be adjusted using solvent as well, that is how broad the claim 1 is. Consequently, if the composition will have claimed property with only 1 polyester and 3-10 parts of any filler, that is all that is required to meet claimed properties.
In claim 5 Gui meets the metal content and metal can be anything, since claim 1 does not disclose metal at all (this lacks antecedent basis for the term “the content of metals” as well as physical properties of the composition which then are utilized to calculate the dispersion index (claims 5 and 13), processability reduction index (claim 6), Ra, haze, static coefficient of friction, oxygen permeability, tensile strength (claim 7), dispersion index (claim 11)
Filter pressure differential (claim 10) does not limit the composition since the values are attributed to the pressure profile of the extruder.
These values are all calculated from physical properties, wherein all physical properties are disclosed in Gui. Instant claim do not depict any values for these properties, consequently, as along as the values of the properties meet the requirement of the dependent claims once plugged into the disclosed equations, the claimed properties are met.
Claims are much broader in scope than what instant specification teaches, and one cannot argue patentability based on examples, without showing that the properties of the claimed invention work over the entire range of aliphatic-aromatic polymers or those made by ring opening polymerization of lactide combined with any inorganic polymer known in the art will still provide the claimed properties.
In summary, the rejections of record are not overcome and are incorporated here by reference.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to ASTM standards utilized in the claims following are ISO and JIS equivalents:
ASTM D638 V has equivalent in ISO 527-2 Type 5B and JIS K7161
ASTM D3985 has equivalent in ISO 15105-2 and JIS K7126-2-B
ASTM D1003 has equivalent in ISO 14782 and JIS K7136
JIS B0601 has equivalent in ISO 4287:1997 and ASTM : ASME B46.1
With respect to the Equation 1:
PNG
media_image1.png
78
314
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While applicants can be their own lexicographers, the extent of which should not contradict the definitions already established in the art. Dispersion Index of a filler is measured by quantifying the spatial distribution, size and uniformity of a filler particles within matrix is accomplished using microscopic imaging, light scattering or spectroscopic techniques. Dispersity of the filler cannot be directly measured from the equation 1, because tensile strength and oxygen permeability are composite performance indicator influenced by many factors such as particle shape, interfacial adhesion, loading dispersion and as such they do not represent a direct physical measurement of the particle size distribution. Consequently, the prior art of record will encompass claimed dispersion index as long as the properties of tensile strength and oxygen permeability are within the same range.
With respect to equation 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
76
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Similarly with the discussion of Formula 1, by definition the measuring the processability reduction index in polymers index involves assessing changes in viscosity, glow behavior, and thermal stability, often quantified by the melt flow index of capillary rheometry. A decrease in processability indicates higher viscosity or degradation is reflected by reduction in MFI at a specific temperature and load. It should be noted that this type of measurement has its own ASTM D1238 standard that is not utilized in the instant invention. While surface roughness is major contributor to total haze, it is not the only contributor. Surface roughness is further influenced by high melt elasticity or crystallization. It is important to note that total haze includes both surface haze (due to roughness) and internal bulk has (due to crystallization /density changed. Consequently, surface roughness is not reflective of the entirety of the haze. Consequently, if the prior art of record meets the limitation of surface roughness and haze, the prior art will meet the limitation of processability reduction index.
With respect to of recitation of ring opening process in the composition claims, the limitation is viewed as product by process. Consequently, the patentable weight is given to the product and not to the process by which it was made.
With respect to the limitation of monomers and/or prepolymers utilized in making polymerizable composition, the aliphatic-aromatic component is selected from a monomer composition comprising diol component and dicarboxylic acid component and a prepolymer of part or all of the monomer composition. As such, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the prepolymer comprising all of the monomers reads on fully polymerized polymer.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coszach (US 2006/0014975) in view of Nyun (KR 2005-0056020 translation attached).
With respect to claim 1, Coszach discloses a method of polymerizing polylactic acid in situ with fillers and additives in order to make a biodegradable composition [0072] and with optical quality [0022, 0153]. The composition is utilized to make packaging [0109]The composition Specifically [0144] of Coszach discloses following composition:
Purified lactide as monomer in presence,
Catalyst (tin octanoate, triphenylphosphine)
A prepolymer which has molecular weight in a range of 10,000-50,000,
Additives which includes fillers, stabilizers and if required catalytic deactivators are added with lactide monomer.
Consistent with broadest reasonable interpretation above, a prepolymer having molecular weight in a range of 10,000-50,000, the molecular weight of the prepolymer produced is encompassed by a range of disclosed in the specification. Once polymerized the molecular weight of the polymer of Coszach is 40,000 up to 350,000 which also encompasses the molecular weight of the instant invention.
While Coszach discloses use of fillers, the goal of his invention lies in the polymerization process and when the additives can be incorporated into polymeric composition in order to form a product having good optical quality. As it is well understood in the art the type of the filler and the content in which such filler can be utilized depends on the intended use of the polymeric composition [0106].
Nyun discloses a composition which also requires optical transparency and is also utilized in the making of packaging materials just like the composition of Coszach.
The majority of the composition of Nyun is also polylactic acid (PLA) in order to maintain transparency (p. 3 of the translation, last sentence. Nyun also discloses use of aliphatic-aromatic polyester that is blended with the PLA to further improve not only transparency but also elongation, tensile strength and release property.
Nyun discloses use of fillers such as silica, in amount of 0.05-3 % by weight (claim 3). The content of silica as disclosed by Nyun is utilized in order to aid in release properties of the film (page 4 of the translation).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention is filed to utilize the silica of Nyun in the composition of Coszach and thereby obtain the claimed invention. Use of silica of Nyun in the claimed amount will not adversely affect transparency of the composition and such composition can still be utilized to make packaging in food industry. Consequently, using silica in such amounts would therefore also result in the composition having claimed viscosity, because not only PLA is the same but also type and content of the filler, including particle size and BET.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, as was disclosed above the Nyun discloses use of no more than 3%,wherein silica is defined particle size in a range of 2-20 microns and surface area of 100-600 m2/g (page 4 of translation). The specific tradename of the silica utilized by Nyun is FPS-11 by Shionogi Co, which has BET of 175-225 m2/g (page 5 of translation, experimental section).
With respect to claim 4, the silica of Nyun is wet processed by extruder, which encompasses the definition of homogenizer as it acts as high shear mixer. Wet processed silica is then added to the composition.
It should also be noted that the composition of Nyun is subject to ASTM D1003 and results in haze value of less than 10% (page 4).
Claims 5-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coszach (US 2006/0014975) in view of Nyun (KR 2005-0056020 translation attached) as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Gui (WO 2021/185339) US 2023/0193021 is used as translation.
Discussion of Coszach and Nyun from paragraph 1 of this office action is incorporated here by reference. In summary, Coszach discloses process of making biodegradable polymer composition having optical properties and transparency. The composition of Coszach discloses use additives utilized in the second condensation reaction added with lactide stream to the prepolymer, wherein additives include fillers. Nyun is utilized to supplement the type and amount of filler that can be utilized in the composition of Coszach without negatively affecting the transparency and processability of the composition. The composition of Coszach is utilized as packaging material in food industry.
While Coszach discloses composition his invention is directed mainly to the process in which the lactide is polymerized. Gui who also teaches composition that includes PLA biodegradable polymer in the same packaging industry and what properties are required for the composition to make good product and at the same time be compostable at the end of service life (Abstract).
Gui discloses composition comprising at least 70%, most preferably at least 85% of polylactic acid [0013] because its use helps to improve the processing properties and the usability such as mechanical properties and thermal properties [0014]. The polylactic acid of Gui has number average molecular weight of 50,000 or more [0015] which is within the range of the molecular weight of the Coszach, Nyun and instant invention. The optical purity of PLA is at least 97%, which is also the purity required by Coszach [0016].
In order to speed up the biodegradation process and improve the properties such as flexibility, elongation, thickness deviation of film products the composition may comprise aliphatic-aromatic copolyester in amount of 10-30 wt.% [0027].
The fillers of Gui also include silica as well as calcium carbonate, titania, and alumina. Organic fillers include cellulose [0033]. The silica is the filler disclosed in the Coszach and Nyun, wherein physical properties are already met by Nyun.
Gui discloses that the content of metallic element is 50-500 ppm [0030, 0055-0056] which is equivalent to 0.005-0.05% which range encompasses claimed range. Addition of such metal is also utilized to increase biodegradation and improve mechanical properties, because metallic element facilitated reactions such as ester exchange and chain expansion between PLA and other resins of additives. The properties of the composition of Gui are as follows:
Intrinsic viscosity of 1.0 dL/g or more [0007], and since the PLA has the same number average molecular weight as consulted with instant specification, as well as exactly the same monomer make up as both instant invention and Coszach, the PLA of Gui will also meet the viscosity.
Oxygen Permeability according to a standard ASTM D3952 [0125] is less than 500 cc/m2 [0129].
Tensile strength of 60 MPa or more (claim 34) while the ASTM methos was not disclosed the sample was subject to tensile speed of 100 mm/min which is the same tensile speed as ASTM D638 V [0122].
Haze and transparency, the article of Gui has transparency of at least 90%, haze of 40% or less and internal haze of 8%. While claims do not distinguish which haze measurement is claimed, both values of Gui meet the claimed range [0064]. While Gui does not disclose the ASTM method, such method is disclosed in Nyun and results in the same overlapping ranges as that of instant invention and Gui.
Roughness of 0.05-0.5 microns [0066], wherein 0.05 microns meets the claimed amount. While the roughness method is not defined, and Gui does not specify if the roughness measurement is a centerline measurements, the following is well established in the art: Centerline roughness is commonly known as average roughness or arithmetic average. It measures the arithmetic average of the absolute values of surface height and deviation (peaks and valleys) within specified sampling length.
Gui discloses that the film produced therein is uniform and the variation of the film thickness is 10% or less [0068]. In fact, the examples disclosed in Table 3 have variation in thickness of less than that. Consequently, for the film that is uniform is viewed as an average measurement with the +/- 10% or less variation.
While coefficient of friction is not disclosed, this property depends on material composition, surface roughness and surface contaminants, which for purpose of this rejection will be viewed as negligible or none. Since all disclosures of record disclose PLA composition comprising filler such as silica, and the content of silica is what influences surface roughness and since roughness influences coefficient of friction, the composition as disclosed in Gui will meet the instantly claimed coefficient of friction.
With respect to claim 5, based on the summary of the properties in Gui above, the dispersion index as claimed by the applicants has tensile strength is 60 MPa or more oxygen permeability of 500 or less and metal content of 0.005-0.05%. The dispersion index value is 12.
With respect to claim 6, Ra is 50 nm, and haze is 48% or less (including both surface haze and internal haze) the processability index will be less than 100.
With respect to claim 7, please refer to all the properties disclosed in Gui as discussed above.
With respect to claim 8, the biodegradable polymer of references utilized in the rejection is PLA, aliphatic-aromatic polyesters when blended with PLA include PBAT (See discussions above).
With respect to claim 10, the limitation is not viewed as limitation that would narrow down the scope of the polymer composition, but operational condition of the filter within the extruder. Having said that, the applicants defined the claims filter pressure difference in instant specification as dependent on inorganic filler dispersion. Specifically, instant specification stated that if filler is well dispersed during the condensation of the polyester, the filter pressure difference is small. If the inorganic filler particles are not well dispersed, aggregation may take place and cause filter clogging.
In all references applied in this rejection uniform distribution of the filler is a must. Coszach as disclosed in paragraph 1 of this rejection adds filler during the polymerization of the lactic acid, in order to obtain product having good optical properties. It is well established fact in the art that aggregated particles will affect transparency of the film and increase opacity. Nyun pretreats silica to homogenize it, wherein it is another well-established knowledge that homogenizing filler is done to break up aggregates and allow uniform dispersion of the filler. Resulting sheet of Nyun as disclosed in paragraph 1 of this rejection has the same haze and transparency as instant invention. Gui discloses importance of uniformly dispersed filler so that uniform surface roughness can be obtained which in turn will directly affect the permeability of the film or a sheet. Since all these properties as disclosed by the prior art of record meet the claimed properties the change in pressure applied to the filter will also be within the same range.
With respect to claims 11-13, primary reference of Coszach disclosed multi-step condensation of polylactic acid first by ring opening and forming prepolymer and the adding monomers and additives to complete condensation of monomers and provide composition for making packaging material for food industry. This topic is presented in detail in paragraph 1 of this rejection. Gui was utilized to supplement the properties of the same type of polylactic polymer (molecular weight and viscosity) necessary for the composition to be suitable as food packaging product. These properties are defined in rejection of instant claim 5 and claim 7 respectively. Polymerization of the PLA is disclosed in rejection of claim 1.
In the light of the above disclosure, at the time instant invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize known process of Coszach to polymerize polylactic acid for the production of the transparent food packaging articles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed, to adjust the properties of the polymer composition of Coszach as it is shown in Gui, since the properties of Gui are necessary to form efficient packaging material that is also compostable thereby minimizing impact on the environment.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coszach (US 2006/0014975) in view of Nyun (KR 2005-0056020 translation attached) and Gui [(WO 2021/185339) US 2023/0193021 is used as translation] as applied to claims 1-8 and 10-13 above, and further in view of Nelson (US 2018/0118936.
Discussion of Coszach and Nyun from paragraph 1 of this rejection is incorporated here by reference. The discussion of Gui from paragraph 2 of this rejection is also incorporated here by reference.
Coszach in his polymerization process discloses purification and melt processing which require crystallization and utilize various ways to promote nucleation and the growth of crystals by seeding pure lactide crystals [0166]. The additives include dispersants. Gui further teaches use of nucleating agents and dispersants (WO document). While Gui discloses cellulose, reference lacks the description of the cellulose.
Nelson discloses composition comprising transparent polylactic acid, which is also utilized to make food packaging, wherein nucleating agents are specifically preferred for biodegradable polymer such as polylactic acid (Abstract). Nelson teaches that in order to improve heat resistance of PLA one of ordinary skill in the art can partially crystallize it [0005] and there are two ways to do it. First by annealing which can negatively impact the final product (for example, by shrinking), and second process is by slow crystallization which takes a long time [0006] not very economical on industrial scale).
Nelson therefore provides solution where polylactic acid polymer can have improved crystallization much faster than slow crystallization and one that does not deteriorate the physical properties of the composition. Nelson achieves this by adding nucleating agent which is based on nanocellulose.
Nanocellulose is added to the polylactic acid along with an additive such as silica [0023, 0072], wherein content of the nanocellulose is 0.1-10 % by weight which functions as a dispersant nucleating agent [0017] or a dispersant [0051]. The length-to-width aspect ratio of nanocellulose particles is from 10-1000, wherein the length is 10-500 nm [0161].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize nanocellulose of Nelson in the composition of Coszach and thereby obtain the claimed invention. Use of nanocellulose will also result in a composition having improved thermal stability for processing the composition into an article, wherein the resulting article is also a food packaging [0134] while maintaining transparency [0195], oxygen permeability [0104], tensile strength [0103].
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coszach (US 2006/0014975) in view of Koyama (US 2020/0181394).
Evidentiary references Aerosil R972 data sheet and US 2012/0277362 used to support examiner’s position regarding the BET limitation for two tradenames of silica used in examples of Koyama only. They are not used as prior art.
With respect to claim 1, Coszach discloses a method of polymerizing polylactic acid in situ with fillers and additives in order to make a biodegradable composition [0072] and with optical quality [0022, 0153]. The composition is utilized to make packaging [0109]The composition Specifically [0144] of Coszach discloses following composition:
Purified lactide as monomer in presence,
Catalyst (tin octanoate, triphenylphosphine)
A prepolymer which has molecular weight in a range of 10,000-50,000,
Additives which includes fillers, stabilizers and if required catalytic deactivators are added with lactide monomer.
Consistent with broadest reasonable interpretation above, a prepolymer having molecular weight in a range of 10,000-50,000, the molecular weight of the prepolymer produced is encompassed by a range of disclosed in the specification. Once polymerized the molecular weight of the polymer of Coszach is 40,000 up to 350,000 which also encompasses the molecular weight of the instant invention.
While Coszach discloses use of fillers, the goal of his invention lies in the polymerization process and when the additives can be incorporated into polymeric composition in order to form a product having good optical quality. As it is well understood in the art the type of the filler and the content in which such filler can be utilized depends on the intended use of the polymeric composition [0106].
Koyama discloses a composition comprising aliphatic and aliphatic-aromatic biodegradable polymers. The composition requires good transparency [0057], moldability and mechanical properties [0010, 0027].
The composition of Koyama also comprises silica in an amount of 8-23 parts [0021]. Examples utilize silica usually in amount of 10 parts (examples 1-7), 5 parts (example 8). The content of the silica is utilized to the extent where the transparency of the composition is not impaired [0057].
Silica of Koyama is pretreated to adjust the moisture adsorbed onto its surface to be in a range of 0.5-7% because moisture content of above 7% the dispersion of the silica will be negatively impacted. If the moisture content is less than 0.5% then the small amount of moisture will form crosslinked liquid film resulting in large bonding surface which is also difficult to disperse. The pretreatment meets the limitation of claim 4, wherein the equipment utilized to pretreat the silica is process steps (product by process) wherein patentable weight is given to the composition and not process by which is weas made or obtained. The treatments includes rendering silica hydrophobic [0054].
With respect to the dynamic viscosity the PLA of Coszach has molecular weight within range overlapping the molecular weight of the PLA of the instant invention. Since filler utilized is silica with the amount, particle size and BET within claimed ranges, its effect on the viscosity will be the same as in the instant application. This is because viscosity not only is dependent on the filler type, particles size and amount but also on the specific polymer and its molecular weight. Consequently, if the composition of claim 1 only requires one pre-polymer with the same amount and type of the filler then the dynamic viscosity will overlap as well. Specifically, the attention is drawn to filler being used in amount of 5 and 10 parts as amounts that do not adversely affect the transparency of the biodegradable film.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, the silica of Koyama has to have particle size in a range of 0.001-0.1 microns, preferably 0.005-0.05 microns which is less than claimed 15 microns or less. While Koyama does not explicitly disclose the BET of the silica, he discloses the tradenames. The silicas disclosed are Nipsil LP a wet silica, manufactured by Tosoh Silica Corporation and R972 dry silica manufactured by Nippon Aerosil CO LTD.
Datasheet for Aerosil’s R 972 reports BET of 30-130 m2/g,
US 2012/0277362 for Nipsil LP reports BET 200 m2/g.
Examples further disclose use of calcium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide, magnesium oxide and the like.
In the light of the above disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize silica of Koyama in the composition of Coszach and thereby obtain the claimed invention. Specifically, Coszach allows use of fillers to obtain transparent article, while Koyama discloses fillers in amounts such that transparency of the composition is not adversely affected.
Claims 5-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coszach (US 2006/0014975) in view of Koyama (US 2020/0181394) as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Gui (WO 2021/185339) US 2023/0193021 is used as translation.
Discussion of the teachings of Coszach and Koyama from paragraph 4 of this office action is incorporated here by reference.
In summary, Coszach and Koyama disclose composition comprising silica as a filler which is utilized to produce transparent articles. The composition comprises mixture of aliphatic and aliphatic-aromatic biodegradable polymers. Composition is utilized to mold transparent food containers. However, Coszach is silent with respect to the properties of transparent film and its barrier properties.
Gui discloses composition comprising at least 70%, most preferably at least 85% of polylactic acid [0013] because its use helps to improve the processing properties and the usability such as mechanical properties and thermal properties [0014]. The polylactic acid of Gui has number average molecular weight of 50,000 or more [0015] which is within the range of the molecular weight of the Coszach, Koyama and instant invention. The optical purity of PLA is at least 97%, which is also the purity required by Coszach [0016].
In order to speed up the biodegradation process and improve the properties such as flexibility, elongation, thickness deviation of film products the composition may comprise aliphatic-aromatic copolyester in amount of 10-30 wt.% [0027].
The fillers of Gui also include silica as well as calcium carbonate, titania, and alumina. Organic fillers include cellulose [0033]. The silica is the filler disclosed in the Coszach and Koyama, wherein physical properties are already met by Koyama.
Gui discloses that the content of metallic element is 50-500 ppm [0030, 0055-0056] which is equivalent to 0.005-0.05% which range encompasses claimed range. Addition of such metal increases biodegradation and improve mechanical properties, because metallic element facilitated reactions such as ester exchange and chain expansion between PLA and other resins of additives. The properties of the composition of Gui are as follows:
Intrinsic viscosity of 1.0 dL/g or more [0007], and since the PLA has the same number average molecular weight as consulted with instant specification, as well as exactly the same monomer make up as both instant invention and Coszach, the PLA of Gui will also meet the required dynamic viscosity.
Oxygen Permeability according to a standard ASTM D3952 [0125] is less than 500 cc/m2 [0129].
Tensile strength of 60 MPa or more (claim 34) while the ASTM methos was not disclosed the sample was subject to tensile speed of 100 mm/min which is the same tensile speed as ASTM D638 V [0122].
Haze and transparency, the article of Gui has transparency of at least 90%, haze of 40% or less and internal haze of 8%. While claims do not distinguish which haze measurement is claimed, both values of Gui meet the claimed range [0064]. While Gui does not disclose the ASTM method, the amounts and results are in the same overlapping ranges as that of instant invention and Gui.
Roughness of 0.05-0.5 microns [0066], wherein 0.05 microns meets the claimed amount. While the roughness method is not defined, and Gui does not specify if the roughness measurement is a centerline measurements, the following is well established in the art: Centerline roughness is commonly known as average roughness or arithmetic average. It measures the arithmetic average of the absolute values of surface height and deviation (peaks and valleys) within specified sampling length.
Gui discloses that the film produced therein is uniform and the variation of the film thickness is 10% or less [0068]. In fact, the examples disclosed in Table 3 have variation in thickness of less than that. Consequently, for the film that is uniform is viewed as an average measurement with the +/- 10% or less variation.
While coefficient of friction is not disclosed, this property depends on material composition, surface roughness and surface contaminants, which for purpose of this rejection will be viewed as negligible or none. Since all disclosures of record disclose PLA composition comprising filler such as silica, and the content of silica is what influences surface roughness and since roughness influences coefficient of friction, the composition as disclosed in Gui will meet the instantly claimed coefficient of friction.
With respect to claim 5, based on the summary of the properties in Gui above, the dispersion index as claimed by the applicants has tensile strength is 60 MPa or more oxygen permeability of 500 or less and metal content of 0.005-0.05%. The dispersion index value is 12.
With respect to claim 6, Ra is 50 nm, and haze is 48% or less (including both surface haze and internal haze) the processability index will be less than 100.
With respect to claim 7, please refer to all the properties disclosed in Gui as discussed above.
With respect to claim 8, the biodegradable polymer of references utilized in the rejection is PLA, aliphatic-aromatic polyesters when blended with PLA include PBAT (See discussions above).
With respect to claim 10, the limitation is not viewed as limitation that would narrow down the scope of the polymer composition, but operational condition of the filter within the extruder. Having said that, the applicants defined the claims filter pressure difference in instant specification as dependent on inorganic filler dispersion. Specifically, instant specification stated that if filler is well dispersed during the condensation of the polyester, the filter pressure difference is small. If the inorganic filler particles are not well dispersed, aggregation may take place and cause filter clogging.
In all references applied in this rejection uniform distribution of the filler is a must. Coszach as disclosed in paragraph 1 of this rejection adds filler during the polymerization of the lactic acid, in order to obtain product having good optical properties. It is well established fact in the art that aggregated particles will affect transparency of the film and increase opacity. Koyama pretreats silica to ensure uniform dispersion throughout the polymer matrix, wherein it is another well-established knowledge that pretreating filler is minimizing formation of aggregates and allow uniform dispersion of the filler. Resulting film of Koyama as disclosed in paragraph 1 of this rejection has the same haze and transparency as instant invention and stresses the importance of proper dispersion. Gui also discloses importance of uniformly dispersed filler so that uniform surface roughness can be obtain which in turn will directly affect the permeability of the film or a sheet. Since all these properties as disclosed by the prior art of record meet the claimed properties the change in pressure applied to the filter will also be within the same range.
With respect to claims 11-13, primary reference of Coszach disclosed multi-step condensation of polylactic acid first by ring opening and forming prepolymer and the adding monomers and additives to complete condensation of monomers and provide composition for making packaging material for food industry. This topic is presented in detail in paragraph 1 of this rejection. Gui was utilized to supplement the properties of the same type of polylactic polymer (molecular weight and viscosity) necessary for the composition to be suitable as food packaging product. These properties are defined in rejection of instant claim 5 and claim 7 respectively. Polymerization of the PLA is disclosed in rejection of claim 1.
In the light of the above disclosure, at the time instant invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize known process of Coszach to polymerize polylactic acid for the production of the transparent food packaging articles. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed, to adjust the properties of the polymer composition of Coszach as it is shown in Gui, since the properties of Gui are necessary to form efficient packaging material that is also compostable thereby minimizing impact on the environment.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coszach (US 2006/0014975) in view of Koyama (US 2020/0181394) and Gui [(WO 2021/185339) US 2023/0193021 is used as translation] as applied to claims 1-8 and 10-13 above, and further in view of Nelson (US 2018/0118936.
Discussion of Coszach and Koyama from paragraph 4 of this rejection is incorporated here by reference. The discussion of Gui from paragraph 5 of this rejection is also incorporated here by reference.
Coszach in his polymerization process discloses purification and melt processing which require crystallization and utilize various ways to promote nucleation and the growth of crystals by seeding pure lactide crystals [0166]. The additives include dispersants. Gui further teaches use of nucleating agents and dispersants (WO document). While Gui discloses cellulose, reference lacks the description of the cellulose.
Nelson discloses composition comprising transparent polylactic acid, which is also utilized to make food packaging, wherein nucleating agents are specifically preferred for biodegradable polymer such as polylactic acid (Abstract). Nelson teaches that in order to improve heat resistance of PLA one of ordinary skill in the art can partially crystallize it [0005] and there are two ways to do it. First by annealing which can negatively impact the final product (for example, by shrinking), and second process is by slow crystallization which takes a long time [0006] not very economical on industrial scale).
Nelson therefore provides solution where polylactic acid polymer can have improved crystallization much faster than slow crystallization and one that does not deteriorate the physical properties of the composition. Nelson achieves this by adding nucleating agent which is based on nanocellulose.
Nanocellulose is added to the polylactic acid along with an additive such as silica [0023, 0072], wherein content of the nanocellulose is 0.1-10 % by weight which functions as a dispersant nucleating agent [0017] or a dispersant [0051]. The length-to-width aspect ratio of nanocellulose particles is from 10-1000, wherein the length is 10-500 nm [0161].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time instant invention was filed to utilize nanocellulose of Nelson in the composition of Coszach and thereby obtain the claimed invention. Use of nanocellulose will also result in a composition having improved thermal stability for processing the composition into an article, wherein the resulting article is also a food packaging [0134] while maintaining transparency [0195], oxygen permeability [0104], tensile strength [0103].
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATARZYNA I KOLB whose telephone number is (571)272-1127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 5712701046. 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.
/KATARZYNA I KOLB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767 September 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights