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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 5/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPAP 2007/0036976 to Legrand in view of USPN 5,457,144 to Holy, USPN 5,498,386 to Lin, and/or USPAP 2023/0357964 to Qin.
Claim 1, Legrand discloses a trimmer line composition comprising: a blend of: a nylon polymer or copolymer and a monomer comprising caprolactam, caprolactone, 6-aminocaproic acid (6-ACA), adipic acid, hexamethylenediamine, or a mixture thereof (see entire document including [0001]-[0015] and [0027]-[0036]).
Legrand does not appear to specifically mention a biodegradation promoter but Legrand does disclose that biodegradability is desired ([0002] and [0036]). Holy discloses that it is known in the trimmer line art to include a biodegradation promoter to improve degradation and Holy further discloses that it is known in the art to include a color masterbatch (see entire document including column 1, lines 10-18, and column 5, line 40 through column 6, line 57). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a biodegradation promoter and a color masterbatch into the composition of Legrand, to improve degradation and provide the desired product color.
Holy does not appear to specifically mention using a biodegradation promoter comprising monosaccharide/aldohexose but Quin discloses that it is conventional in the biodegradable nylon art to include a biodegradable additive such as monosaccharide/aldohexose (see entire document including [0025]-[0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed monosaccharide/aldohexose biodegradable additive, because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known biodegradable additive on the basis of its suitability and desired characteristics.
Regarding the claimed specific level of biodegradability, considering that the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical trimmer line composition as the claimed trimmer line composition, the prior art trimmer line would inherently behave as claimed. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 2, the nylon polymer or copolymer or terpolymers comprises nylon 6, nylon 66, nylon 610, nylon 611, nylon 612, nylon 613, nylon 614, nylon 615, nylon 618, nylon 12, nylon 6/66, nylon 66/6, nylon 6/69, nylon 6/610, nylon 6/612 mixtures thereof, and/or copolymers thereof ([0027]-[0033]).
Claim 3, the nylon polymer or copolymer is present in an amount of from about 80% to about 99% by weight of the trimmer line ([0025]-[0032]).
Claim 4, the monomer is present in an amount of from about 0% to about 15% by weight of the trimmer line ([0025]-[0032]).
Claim 5, Quin discloses that the biodegradable additive is present in an amount of from about 0.5% to 10% by weight of the nylon ([0025]-[0027]).
Claim 6, Holy discloses that colorants such as pigments and dyes may be included (paragraph bridging columns 5 and 6) but does not appear to mention a specific amount. Lin discloses that it is common in the art to include a color concentrate in an amount of 1.0 to 10.0 weight percent (see entire document including the paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a color masterbatch in an amount of 0.5% to 2% by weight since it is a conventional amount.
Claim 7, Lin does not appear to mention the specific color masterbatch (concentrate) color additive amount but the examiner takes official notice (now admitted prior art) that the additive weight percentage in a color masterbatch typically ranges within the claimed range of from about 10% to about 30% by weight of the color masterbatch. Plus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount, such as claimed, based on the desired color strength.
Claim 9, considering that the applied prior art discloses a substantially identical trimmer line composition as the claimed trimmer line composition, the prior art trimmer line would inherently behave as claimed. The Patent and Trademark Office can require applicants to prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes; burden of proof is on applicants where rejection based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, and Patent and Trademark Office’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products evidences fairness of this rejection, In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1977).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 have been considered but are mostly moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Regarding applicant’s assertion that one or ordinary skill in the biodegradable nylon trimmer line art would not look to Qin, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The particular problem the current application is concerned with is nylon biodegradability ([0002]-[0008]). Qin is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned which is a nylon blend capable of biodegradation. Qin discloses “blending the biodegradable additives into nylon…the biodegradable additives being at least one of…monosaccharide and aldohexose” [0025].
The applicant also asserts that there is no expectation of success when blending the monosaccharide and aldohexose of Qin into the nylon trimmer line of Legrand. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Qin teaches success in blending biodegradable additives into nylon and specifically mentions monosaccharide and aldohexose” [0025].
Conclusion
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 ANDREW T PIZIALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/ANDREW T PIZIALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights