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 .
DETAILED ACTION
All the references cited in the International Search Report have been considered. None is anticipatory or meet the claims.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (JP 2007118578) in view of Matsumoto et al. (JP2007046019), both listed on IDS.
As to claims 1-4, Morita (abs., claims, examples) discloses a process of producing foam sheets (4, 8, claims 1-4) comprising a polylactic acid via molding. The difference in crystallinity before and after the molding process the 5% or more (claim 1) or 5-70% (52-53), overlapping with the range of instant claim 1 (20-40%) and instant claim 3 (30-40%). The crystallinity before the process is 0-25%, overlapping with the range of instant claim 2 (≤3.8%). The (bulk) density (47) of the foam sheet is 0.063-0.63 g/cm3, overlapping with the range of instant claim 4 (0.063-0.25 g/cm3). It has been found that where claimed ranges overlap ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists - see MPEP 2144.05.
Morita is silent on the claimed polylactic acid comprising 98 mol % or more of any one among a D-isomer of lactic acid and an L-isomer of lactic acid as a constituent monomer unit. Morita (4) further discloses foam sheets with low crystallinity shows poor heat resistance.
In the same area of producing molded foam comprising polylactic acid (claims, abs., 1, 10), Matusmoto (18) discloses polylactic acid comprising more than 98 mol% of D-isomer of lactic acid and an L-isomer of lactic acid shows more crystallinity.
Therefore, as to claims 1-4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process disclosed by Morita and replaced the polylactic acid with aforementioned Matusmoto’s polylactic acid, because the resultant process would yield increased crystallinity and improved heat resistance.
Claim(s) 5 is (are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (JP 2007118578) in view of Matsumoto et al. (JP2007046019), both listed on IDS), and further in view of Senda et al. (Derwent, JP H0686544, Nov 2nd, 1994).
Disclosure of Morita and Matsumoto is adequately set forth in ¶1 and is incorporated herein by reference.
They are silent on the claimed foam cell diameter.
In the same area of producing foams by molding, Senda (abs.) teaches an optimal foam cell diameter 200 to 800 μm (falling within the claimed range) for the molding process to prevent shrinkage during molding and obtain uniformity and an optimal process window.
Therefore, as to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the process disclosed by Morita and Matsumoto and utilized the foam cell diameter (200 to 800 μm) in view of Senda, because the resultant process would yield improved shrinkage, uniformity, and process window.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7378. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs. 8am-6pm. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached on 571.572.1302. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHANE FANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766