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 Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 15, polyethylene glycol is recited in the list of plasticizers in line 4 and again at the beginning of line 9. One of these recitations should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 10, 12-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrady et al. (US 2021/0171739).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 7, McGrady et al. teaches a polymer composition comprising a cellulose acetate (cellulose ester polymer), optionally at least one bio-based polymer, and optionally a plasticizer (¶9). McGrady et al. additionally teaches that the composition may contain aromas (odor masking agent) such as eugenol, vanillin and ethylvanillin (¶69).
There is not an example which teaches using these components together. However, at the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form a composition comprising cellulose acetate, an optional bio-based polymer, an optional plasticizer, and an aroma, and would have been motivated to do so because McGrady et al. teaches that each of these components are suitable for use together and in the disclosed composition.
Regarding claim 9, McGrady et al. teaches that the cellulose acetate can be present in the composition in an amount from about 15% to about 85% by weight (¶10).
Regarding claim 10, McGrady et al. teaches that the plasticizer can be present in the polymer composition in an amount from about 8% to about 40% by weight (¶10).
Regarding claim 12, McGrady et al. teaches that the plasticizer can be selected from triacetin, monoacetin, diacetin, acetyl triethyl citrate, or mixtures thereof (¶68). The plasticizer may also be polyethylene glycol or triethyl citrate (¶69).
Regarding claim 13, McGrady et al. teaches that the cellulose acetate can be present in the composition in an amount from about 55% to about 80% by weight, and the plasticizer can be present in the polymer composition in an amount from about 12% to about 35% by weight (¶10).
Regarding claim 14, McGrady et al. teaches that the cellulose acetate comprises mainly cellulose diacetate in an amount of greater than about 99% by weight of the cellulose acetate (¶42).
Regarding claim 15, McGrady et al. teaches that the plasticizer comprises tris(clorisopropyl) phosphate, tris(2-chloro-1-methylethyl) phosphate, monoacetin, acetyl triethyl citrate, triacetin, diacetin, trimethyl phosphate, triethyl phosphate, tributyl phosphate, triphenyl phosphate, triethyl citrate, tributyl-o-acetyl citrate, dibutyl tartrate, ethyl o-benzoylbenzoate, n-ethyltoluenesulfonamide, o-cresyl p-toluenesulfonate, aromatic diol, substituted aromatic diols, aromatic ethers, tripropionin, tribenzoin, glycerin, glycerin esters, glycerol tribenzoate, glycerol acetate benzoate, polyethylene glycol, polyethylene glycol esters, polyethylene glycol diesters, di-2-ethylhexyl polyethylene glycol ester, glycerol esters, diethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, polyglycoldiglycidyl ethers, dimethyl sulfoxide, N-methyl pyrollidinone, propylene carbonate, C.sub.1-C.sub.20 dicarboxylic acid esters, dimethyl adipate, di-butyl maleate, di-octyl maleate, resorcinol monoacetate, catechol, catechol esters, phenols, epoxidized soy bean oil, castor oil, linseed oil, epoxidized linseed oil, difunctional glycidyl ether based on polyethylene glycol, alkyl lactones, phospholipids, 2-phenoxyethanol, acetylsalicylic acid, acetaminophen, naproxen, imidazole, triethanol amine, benzoic acid, benzyl benzoate, salicylic acid, 4-hydroxybenzoic acid, propyl-4-hydroxybenzoate, methyl-4-hydroxybenzoate, ethyl-4-hydroxybenzoate, benzyl-4-hydroxybenzoate, glyceryl tribenzoate, neopentyl dibenzoate, triethylene glycol dibenzoate, trimethylolethane tribenzoate, butylated hydroxytoluene, butylated hydroxyanisol, sorbitol, xylitol, ethylene diamine, piperidine, piperazine, hexamethylene diamine, triazine, triazole, pyrrole, and combinations thereof (¶68, 69).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, McGrady et al. teaches that the composition comprises polyhydroxybutyrate (¶13).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, McGrady et al. teaches that the composition is used to make an article such as a drinking straw, a beverage holder, cutlery, packaging, a container, lids, and automotive parts (¶14).
Regarding claim 21, McGrady et al. teaches that the article can be formed through extrusion, injection molding, or thermoforming (¶83, 86).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrady et al. (US 2021/0171739) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tetrault et al. (US 2017/0359967).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, McGrady et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. McGrady et al. does not teach that the odor masking agent comprises geraniol or geranyl acetate. However, Tetrault et al. teaches a super absorbent polymer composition comprising a cellulose polymer (¶22, 31, 34) and a compound which may impart a fragrance to the composition such as geraniol or geranyl acetate (¶107). McGrady et al. and Tetrault et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of cellulosic polymer compositions useful in disposable articles. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a fragrance imparting agent such as geraniol or geranyl acetate, as taught by Tetrault et al. to the composition, as taught by McGrady et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the consumer with a pleasant-smelling product and/or a product that does not have an unpleasant smell from the production process.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrady et al. (US 2021/0171739) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Argoud et al. (US 2019/0264006).
Regarding claim 8, McGrady et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. McGrady et al. does not teach that the odor masing agent is present in the composition in an amount from about 0.001% by weight to about 1% by weight. However, Argoud et al. teaches a composition comprising cellulose acetate, starch acetate, and at least one plasticizer (¶14-17) and from 0.1% to 10% by weight of an odor masker (¶86, 87). McGrady et al. and Argoud et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of composition of cellulose acetate compositions useful for molded, consumer goods. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use from 0.1% to 10% by weight, as taught by Argoud et al., of the odor maskers/aromas/fragrances in the composition, as taught by McGrady et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to impart the desired amount of fragrance or odor masking for the particular end-use product.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrady et al. (US 2021/0171739) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maheras et al. (US 5,446,140).
Regarding claim 11, McGrady et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. McGrady et al. does not teach that the cellulose acetate has an acetyl value of from about 48% to about 57%. However, Maheras et al. teaches a composition comprising cellulose acetate and starch acetate for making plastic materials (Col. 1, lines 10-15) wherein the cellulose acetate has an acetyl value of 20 to 62% (Col. 3, lines 25-30). McGrady et al. and Maheras et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of compositions of cellulose acetate used for molded articles. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a cellulose acetate with an acetyl value of 20 to 62%, as taught by Maheras et al., in the composition, as taught by McGrady et al., and would have been motivated to do so to have the desired solubility and stability of the cellulose acetate to allow for proper processing of the compositions.
Claims 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrady et al. (US 2021/0171739) as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Combs et al. (US 2022/0162423).
Regarding claim 18, McGrady et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 as set forth above. McGrady et al. does not teach that the composition further comprises a filler. However, Combs et al. teaches a polymer composition containing a cellulose acetate polymer in combination with at least one plasticizer, and a biodegradable filler (¶8). McGrady et al. and Combs et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of composition of cellulose acetate and plasticizers used for molded articles. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add a biodegradable filler, as taught by Combs et al., to the composition, as taught by McGrady et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order improve the biodegradable characteristics of the cellulose acetate polymer and/or improve the mechanical properties of articles made from the polymer composition (¶8).
Regarding claim 22, McGrady et al. teaches the composition of claim 1 and the article made of the composition of claim 19 as set forth above. McGrady et al. does not teach that the article in the shape of an extruded film. However, Combs et al. teaches that its composition can form extruded articles such as a film (¶16; claim 19). At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form an extruded film, as taught by Combs et al., from the composition, as taught by McGrady et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to produce other end uses articles from the composition.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767