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. Rejections Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 1. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. 2. Claims 1- 1 6 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. A. The instant claim s 1 and 7, and thereby the claims which depend from claims 1 and 7, recite “selected from the group including”. A Markush group must be closed. “[I] ncluding ” is open language. See MPEP 2111.03 Transitional Phrases [R-01.2024], particularly “I. COMPRISING The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including ," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004)”. The Markush group is required to be closed. See MPEP 2117 Markush Claims [R-01.2024] , particularly “ Claim language defined by a Markush grouping requires selection from a closed group "consisting of" the alternative members. Id. at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. See also Amgen Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, 945 F.3d 1368, 1376-78, 2020 USPQ2d 3197 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (stating that there is a strong presumption that a claim element set off with "consisting of" is closed to unrecited elements.). ” See MPEP 2173.05( h) Alternative Limitations [R-01.2024] , particularly “ A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112( b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See In re Kiely, 2022 USPQ2d 532 at 2* (Fed. Cir. 2022) (each independent claim recites "a selection from the group comprising a person, an animal, an animated character, a creature, an alien, a toy, a structure, a vegetable, and a fruit." … (emphasis added). "Given the breadth of variation among the specified alternatives and the use of the open-ended word ’comprising’ to define the scope of the list, we affirm the Board's conclusion that the pending claims recite improper Markush language and are indefinite under § 112(b)."). If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as "at least one member" selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as "or mixtures thereof"). Id. at 1281. See also MPEP § 2111.03. ” I t is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the instant claims 1- 1 6 because the open language “including” opens the Markush group of the at least one compound C to other unspecified alternatives. It is not clear what these unspecified alternatives are because they are not particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed as required by the above cited statute . The scope of the claims is therefore not clear. For examination purposes, the claims will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. B. It is not clear what is required by “wherein the content of the polylactic acid B relative to the content of the cellulose acylate A exceeds 0.5 and is 0.9 or less” and “the content of the compound C relative to the content of the cellulose acylate A exceeds 0.15 and is 0.3 or less” of the instant claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-16 . Particularly, it is not clear if the recited amounts are by mass, volume, moles, or some other basis. The instantly c laimed “relative to” is defined in the instant specification at paragraphs [0106] -[ 0107]. For examination purposes, any prior art reading on the claimed ratios by any basis will be taken as reading on the instant claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 3. 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 – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 4. Claim s 1 -3 , 6 - 10 , 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. Application Publication No. 2020/0399447 Yao et al. Regarding claims 1 and 6 : Yao exemplifies a mixture of 100 parts by mass of CPA1, which is cellulose acetate propionate, which falls within the scope of the instant claim 6, according to paragraph [0179], 60 parts by mass of PLA2, which is polylactic acid according to paragraph [0181], and 20 parts by mass of CE2, which is a diethylhexyl adipate ester compound according to paragraph [0183]. See Yao, page 12, Table 7, Comparative Example 14. This gives a content of the polylactic acid B relative to the content of the cellulose acylate of 0.60, which falls within the scope of that of the instant claim 1. This gives a content of the ester compound to the content of the cellulose acylate of 0.20, which falls within the scope of that of the instant claim 1. Comparative Example 14 of Yao therefore anticipates the instant claims 1 and 6. Regarding claims 2 and 3: Yao, paragraphs [0015] and [0155, shows component D to be their core/shell polymer. Yao, paragraphs [0184] -[ 0191], describes their exemplified core/shell polymer. Yao, Table 6, Comparative Example 14, uses 10 parts by mass of their core/shell component C/S (D), which gives a ratio of 0.10 of parts by mass of core/shell particles/cellulose acylate. Yao’s Comparative Example 14 therefore anticipates the instant claims 2 and 3. Regarding claim 7: Yao, page 13, Table 9, Comparative Example 14, shows the composition of Comparative Example 14 to give a weld-line impact strength of 8 kJ/m 2 and a weld-line impact strength relative to Charpy impact strength of 0.40, both of which fall within the scope of the instant claim 7. Yao’s Co m parative Example 14 therefore anticipates the instant claim 7. Regarding claims 8 -10 , 13, and 14 : The articles made with the Comparative Example 14 of Yao, paragraphs [0192] -[ 0199], noting the heading “Examples 1 to 32, Comparative Examples 1 to 17” above paragraph [0192], fall within the scope of the articles of the instant claims 8 -10 , 13, and 14. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5 . 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. 6 . Claim s 1 -16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Application Publication No. 2020/0399447 Yao et al. Regarding claims 1 -3 and 6 : Yao discloses compositions containing cellulose acetate propionate or cellulose acetate butyrate, polylactic acid, and an ester compound. Yao exemplifies cellulose acetate propionate which anticipates the limitation of the instant claim 6. See Yao, the abstract, and paragraphs [ 0010] -[ 0024]. Yao’s compositions are to contain a mass ratio of polylactic acid to cellulose acylate of 0.03-0.15 and a mass ratio of the ester compound to cellulose acylate of 0.03-0.15. The compositions of Yao are also to contain a mass ratio of core-shell polymer to cellulose acylate of 0.01-0.1 , which includes values within the range of the instant claim 3 . See Yao, paragraph [0015]. It is noted that the ranges of Yao and the instant claims are different. However, it is also noted that the range of polylactic acid to cellulose acylate touch at 0.5 of Yao and “exceeds 0.5” of the instant claims. Within the decimal precision and accuracy of 0.5, it is noted that 0.5001, for example, rounds to 0.5 of Yao and exceeds 0.5 of the instant claims. The instant claims and the compositions of Yao therefore overlap at 0.5001 mass ratio of polylactic acid to cellulose acylate. Furthermore, adding merely one molecule more of polylactic acid or subtracting one molecule from the cellulose acylate will place the 0.5 mass ratio of Yao within the scope of “exceeds 0.5” but will give no difference which is detectable by current instruments between the two compositions. The mass ratios of ester compound to cellulose acylate of Yao and the instant claims and of core/shell particles to cellulose acylate of Yao and the instant claims contain the same overlap due to the mathematical precision and accuracy of 0.15 of Yao and “exceeds 0.15” of the instant claims. See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions [R-01.2024] , particularly “ Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. " The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties ."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Scherl , 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937) ("Where the component elements of alloys are the same, and where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys ."); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933)(the prior art teaching an alkali cellulose containing minimal amounts of water, found by the Examiner to be in the 5-8% range, the claims sought to be patented were to an alkali cellulose with varying higher ranges of water (e.g., "not substantially less than 13%," "not substantially below 17%," and "between about 13[%] and 20%"); K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH, 567 Fed. App'x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(reversing the Board's decision, in an appeal of an inter partes reexamination proceeding, that certain claims were not prima facie obvious due to non-overlapping ranges); In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)( the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.). ” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to make the inventions of Yao having one molecule or slightly more of polylactic acid and ester compound so as to give a mass ratio of polylactic acid/cellulose acylate of very slightly above 0.5 and a mass ratio of ester compound/cellulose acylate of very slightly above 0.15 while keeping the ratios within the decimal accuracy and precision of the instantly claimed ratios and the ratios of Yao simultaneously because such compositions are mathematically encompassed by Yao and the instant claims and would have been expected to give compositions with no measurable difference. Note the above MPEP citation particularly in this regard. This makes obvious the instant claims 1-3 and 6. Regarding claims 4 and 5: Yao discloses using metal oxide s in their compositions in amounts up to 5% by mass of the total composition. See Yao, paragraphs [0147] and [0149]. This disclosure of Yao includes the limitations of the instant claims 4 and 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to make the inventions of Yao , as discussed above regarding claims 1-3 and 6, which contain the metal oxides of Yao in amounts of Yao which fall within the scope of the instant claim 5 because such compositions are encompassed by Yao and would have been expected to give compositions with the acid acceptor properties of Yao, paragraph [0147] . This makes obvious the instant claims 4 and 5 . Regarding claim 7: Yao discloses a weld-line impact strength of 10kJ/m 2 or more and a weld-line impact strength/Charpy impact strength ratio of 0.5 or more. The ranges of Yao and the instant claims touch at 10kJ/m 2 o f Yao and “less than 10kJ/m 2 ” of the instant claim 7 and 0.5 of Yao and “less than 0.5” of the instant claim 7. These endpoints touch each other within their recited mathematical precision and accuracies. For example, 9.99 kJ/m 2 rounds to 10kJ/m 2 of the instant claim 7 and is “less than 10kJ/m 2 ” of the instant claim 7 . The same idea applies to the weld-line impact strength/Charpy impact strength ratio of Yao and the instant claims. These values are mathematically and physically indistinguishable at these end points as discussed above. Current instruments could not detect any difference between the compositions of the instant claims and Yao when values very slightly less than 10kJ/m 2 of Yao and 0.5 of Yao are used. Note that such values are encompassed by Yao and the instant claims because the mathematical accuracy and precision of Yao encompasses these values because they round to the endpoints of Yao. See the above citation of MPEP 2144.05 . It is therefore the examiner’s position that the instant claim 7 is obvious from the teachings of Yao. Regarding claims 8-14: Making the articles of Yao from the above discussed compositions gives the instant claims 8-14. Note Yao, paragraph [0171] and the remainder of the document. Coupled with the above composition obviousness statements, Yao makes the instantly claimed products obvious. Regarding claims 15-16: Yao, paragraph [0176] discloses making electronic and electrical equipment with their compositions. This encompasses printed circuit boards and electrically insulated electronic and electrical equipment housings, noting the housings of Yao. Such electronic and electrical equipment and housings are laminates of polymer-metal-polymer to give insulated conductor in printed circuit boards and insulated electromagnetic interference shielding in electronic and electrical housings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instantly claimed invention to make the electronic and electrical equipment and housings of Yao with the above discussed compositions of Yao such that the articles of Yao are in the form of printed circuit board with at least one layer of Yao’s compositions discussed above on each side of metal conductor or in the form of an electrically shielded and insulated electronic or electrical housing because such articles are encompassed by Yao, paragraph [0176] and would have been expected to give the properties of the compositions of Yao to these articles encompassed by Yao. The teachings of Yao thereby make the instant claims 15 and 16 obvious. Conclusion 7 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Value for firstName-middleName-lastName?" \* MERGEFORMAT PATRICK D NILAND whose telephone number is FILLIN "Insert your individual area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1121 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s name." \* MERGEFORMAT Robert S Jones , can be reached at telephone number FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7733 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice . /PATRICK D NILAND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1762