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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant's election with traverse of Species 2 in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that search and examination of all four species would not impose a serious search or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because there would be a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species, because the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Rejoinder will be considered at the time of allowance. Claims 10 and 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is 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.
The exact composition of the claimed “non-biodegradable commercial trimmer line” is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 1-9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by USPN 5,457,144 to Holy or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over USPN 5,457,144 to Holy in view of USPAP 2007/0036976 to Legrand, USPN 5,498,386 to Lin, and/or USPAP 2023/0357964 to Qin.
Claim 1, Holy discloses a trimmer line composition comprising: a nylon polymer or copolymer, a monomer comprising caprolactam, caprolactone, 6-aminocaproic acid (6-ACA), adipic acid, hexamethylenediamine, or a mixture thereof, a biodegradation promoter, and a color masterbatch (see entire document including column 1, lines 10-18, column 2, lines 51-61, column 3, line 25 through column 4, line 67, and column 5, line 40 through column 6, line 57). In the event that it is shown that the applied prior art does not disclose the claimed embodiment with sufficient specificity, the invention is obvious because the applied prior art teaches the claimed constituents are known and obvious.
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 (column 3, lines 25-31).
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 (column 3, lines 25-31).
Claim 4, the monomer is present in an amount of from about 0% to about 15% by weight of the trimmer line (column 3, line 25 through column 4, line 40).
Claims 5, 11 and 12, Holy discloses that a biodegradation promoter may be present (column 6, lines 11-20). Holy does not appear to mention a specific amount of biodegradation promoter but considering that the additive is optional, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to vary the amount, such as from the claimed about 0.5% to about 5% by weight, based on the desired level of biodegradation. Plus, Quin discloses that it is conventional in the biodegradable nylon art to include 0.5% to 10% by weight of a biodegradable additive such as aldohexose ([0025]-[0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a biodegradable additive, such as aldohexose, in an amount of 0.5% to 10% by weight, to provide improved biodegradability.
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 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.
Claims 8 and 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).
Conclusion
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