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
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities: please amend “N,N’-Ethylene Bis(Stearamide)” to read ““N,N’-ethylene bis(stearamide)” 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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al (US 2002/0143136) in view of Belias et al (US 2021/0292066).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-6, Noda teaches a composition for making a blown film ([0056]) comprising: A blend of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) copolymers ([0034]) and polylactic acid (PLA) as the bio polyester ([0041]). The PHA is present in the amount from 5 to 95 % by weight of the film ([0034]) and the amount of PLA is 5 to 95 % by weight of the film ([0045]).
Other ingredients such as slip agents can be added to the composition ([0050]), however Noda fails to teach the exact type of slip agent.
Belias teaches a blown film ([0002]) which incorporates a slip agent such as ethylene bisstearamide ([0239]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the ethylene bisstearamide of Belias into the composition of Noda. One would have been motivated to do so in order to receive the expected benefit of providing a slip additive to reduce the coefficient of friction of the blown film (Belias, [0239]).
Regarding claim 3, Noda teaches that the composition can contain an antiblock additive or a processing aid additive that reduces the fiction on the surface of the film such as wax ([0050]).
Regarding claims 7-8, Noda teaches that plasticizers are an optional ingredient in the composition ([0047]) and, therefore the amount of plasticizer in the composition can be zero.
Regarding claim 10, it is noted that the antiblock additive is not mandatorily present.
Regarding claims 11-12, it is noted that the processing aid additive is not mandatorily present.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noda et al (US 2002/0143136).
Regarding claim 13, Noda teaches Noda teaches a composition for making a blown film ([0056]) comprising: A blend of polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) copolymers ([0034]) and polylactic acid (PLA) as the bio polyester ([0041]). The PHA is present in the amount from 5 to 95 % by weight of the film ([0034]) and the amount of PLA is 5 to 95 % by weight of the film ([0045]). Other ingredients such as slip agents can be added to the composition ([0050]).
It is noted that the process steps recited in the claims are product-by-process limitations and, therefore, do not carry much patentable weight.
Noda fails to specifically exemplify the blown film. However, Noda discloses each of the components of the film, and teaches that they are all suitable for use in the blown film. It is within the ordinary level of skill in the art to make any of the blown films suggested by a reference, including selecting materials from a list in a reference. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to prepare any of the blown films suggested by Noda, including the claimed film. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present invention to use the teachings of Noda to arrive at the presently claimed invention. It would have been nothing more than using known components in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. 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.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights