DETAILED ACTION
Applicants’ response dated 1/7/26 has been entered. The amendment has over-come the rejections in the previous office action. The new limitation required an updated review of the prior art. As such the following new ground of rejection is being made.
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 to 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12 to 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25 and 27 to 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lourido et al. 2012/0273496.
Lourido et al. teach a composition that contains a dispersing agent, blend of poly-
mers and a filler, among other components. See for instance paragraphs 13 and 47. A preferred dispersing agent is casein, as taught in paragraph 14. A preferred polymer is polypropylene (paragraph 17). A preferred filler is calcium carbonate (paragraph 47). Note that calcium carbonate can be present in an amount of 25 to 125 php. Given the fact that each of the three claimed components are preferred components in the compo-sition of Lourido et al. and that the prior art range of calcium carbonate overlaps to such a significant extent with that claimed such that it is clearly met by Lourido et al., claim 1 is anticipated.
To further support the above position of anticipation, the Examiner draws specific attention to Example 1, paragraphs 95 and on. This composition contains a blend of polypropylene, calcium carbonate and casein. The only difference between this and that claimed is Example 1 does not contain from 30 to 80 et% calcium carbonate. In view of the teachings in paragraph 47 it is clear an amount of calcium carbonate within this range is fully contemplated by Lourido et al., and as such the difference between that claimed and that in Example 1 would have been anticipated by the skilled artisan.
For claim 2, polypropylene is a preferred polymer and used in Example 1.
For claim 3, note that this only limits the caseinate while the casein in Lourido et al. meets this limitation.
For claim 5, note that Example 1 contains casein in such an amount.
For claim 7, note that Example 1 contains titanium dioxide.
For claim 9, note that Example 1 contains an acrylic resin meeting the “acrylic based resin” in this claim.
For claim 10, note that while it is not clear how much acrylic resin is in this example (since it is unclear how much is in the aqueous dispersion), given the fact that the aqueous dispersion is added in an amount of 10 wt% per 100 total weight, it clearly will fall within this amount which includes anything greater than 0 but up to 20 wt%.
For claims 12 and 13, note that products of identical chemical composition can’t have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and properties are insepar-able. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. If applicants are of the position that the prior art does not, in fact, possess the same properties as the claimed composition, the claimed composition should be amended to distinguish itself from the prior art.
For claims 14, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27 to 20, see the limitations addressed supra for the composition, as they apply to method claims as well. In addition note that the composition of Lourido et al. is used to prepare a package (abstract, paragraph 69).
Claims 6, 8, 11, 15, 16, 21, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lourido et al.
For claims 6 and 21, note that paragraph 63 teaches the addition of calcium
proprionate as a preservative. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this is a typographical error, as there is no such compound as calcium proprionate. In addition, it is used as a preservative and calcium propionate is a known preservative. From this one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the presence of calcium propionate as a preservative in amounts of up to 3 php to have been obvious over the teachings in Lourido et al.
For claim 8 and 23, adjusting the amount of added filler in the composition of Lourido et al. in an effort to obtain the benefits and properties desired from this filler would have been obvious and well within the skill of the ordinary artisan. Note, for instance, that paragraph 50 teaches the addition of pigments which fall within the additives of claims 7 and 22 in amounts that overlap with those claimed such that optim-izing and/or adjusting the amounts to obtain the desired results for the intended use would have been obvious to the skilled artisan.
For claims 11 and 26, note that adjusting the amount of a component which provides improved impact strength would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, in an effort to optimize the properties of the final product while not impairing the desired properties of the final composition.
For claims 15 and 16, Lourido et al. do not teach this step. Note, though, that such a treatment is very common in the art, as a means of improving sterilization. For instance, note the following from a quick search on the internet:
e beam sterilization polypropylene packaging
Ebeam sterilization is a viable option for polypropylene packaging, particularly when the material is designed to withstand the sterilization process. Polypropylene (PP) is known for its strong compatibility with ebeam sterilization, which is crucial for medical devices that require radiation resistance. The follow-ing points highlight the importance of selecting the right materials and understanding the sterilization
process:
This is but one example of many that support the position that such a treatment step is known in the art.
From this one having ordinary skill in the art would have found such an e-beam treatment to have been obvious in an effort to obtain the known benefits and properties thereof.
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 MARGARET MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelly, can be reached at 571-270-1831.
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 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.
Mgm
1/26/26
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765