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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 7, 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Office.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al. (KR101627616, English translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Koo”).
As to Claim 1: Koo teaches a resin composition comprising a polypropylene resin (i.e., a base resin as defined by the instant specification para. [0025]-[0026]), coffee grounds, and pulp ([0060], Example 7) (i.e., a first and second plant filler as defined by the instant specification para. [0030]-[0032]), and a compatibilizer ([0031]) which is a maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene ([0031]-[(0032]). Koo further teaches an exemplary resin composition comprising 75 g of coffee grounds, 75 g of pulp (i.e., 50 mass% of a first plant filler and 50 mass% of a second plant filler). Koo further teaches exemplary compositions wherein the species of the polypropylene resin is “Moplen EP640R” sold by PolyMirae ([0060]), for which evidence1 indicates has a 0.9 g/cm3, which is construed to meet the claimed “crystalline resin”).
Koo is silent towards the triacylglycerol content of the coffee grounds and pulp (i.e., a first plant filler and a second plant filler). The instant specification provides evidence that the species of plant filler disclosed by Koo exhibit the claimed triacylglycerol content (para. [0038] of the instant specification discloses that the triacylglycerol content of the composition is derived from the presence of the plant filler). As the plant fillers of Koo meet the claimed species, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the corresponding components to inherently exhibit the claimed triacylglycerol content.
As to Claim 3-4: Koo teaches the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Koo is silent towards the content of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin of the plant filler mixture. However, the species of plant filler disclosed by Koo reads on the species as defined by the instant specification (see para. [0030]-[0033]). The instant specification provides evidence that the species of plant filler disclosed by Koo exhibit the claimed cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin content (para. [0031] of the instant specification discloses that the cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin content of the composition is derived from the presence of the plant filler). As the plant fillers of Koo meet the claimed species, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the corresponding components to inherently exhibit the claimed cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin content.
As to Claim 7: Koo teaches the composition of claim 1 (supra).
Koo is silent towards a degree of crystallinity of the base resin in regions around the plant filler and regions away from the plant filler.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process (i.e., the claimed plant fillers and the claimed resin). The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. crystallization behavior of the resin when mixed with the plant fillers, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al. (KR101627616, English translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Koo”) in view of Mikami et al. (US20170334105, hereinafter referred to as “Mikami”).
As to Claim 2: Koo teaches the composition of claim 1 (see above).
Koo is silent towards wherein the composition comprises the claimed range for an amount of plant filler.
Mikami teaches a related composite resin composition comprising an organic fibrous filler and a dispersing agent (Abstract). Mikami teaches wherein the resin may be based on polymerized olefinic monomers (e.g., propylene) ([0020]) and wherein the organic fibrous filler may be a plant filler such as pulp, cotton, or hemp ([0028]). Mikami further teaches that the composition may comprise the organic fibrous filler in an amount of 5 to 70 mass% of the composition ([0004]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Koo and Mikami are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, organic/plant-fiber reinforced resin compositions and articles formed therefrom. The range for an amount of organic/plant-fiber filler taught by Mikami overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range for the plant-filler of Koo, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Mikami suggests, that the overlapping portion is a usable range for an amount of organic/plant-fiber filler within a resin composition suitable for reinforcing the mechanical properties of olefin-based resins (e.g., propylene) such that they are amenable to forming consumer articles (e.g., containers, packaging).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al. (KR101627616, English translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Koo”) in view of Ton-That et al. (US20050009960, hereinafter referred to as “Ton”).
As to Claim 5: Koo teaches the composition of claim 1 (see above).
Koo is silent towards the particle size of the component which reads on the claimed plant filler.
Ton teaches a related thermoplastic composite comprising a polyolefin and a cellulosic filler (Abstract), which may be from agricultural sources ([0012]) (i.e., a plant filler). Ton further teaches that the particle size may be in the range of 0.1 to 5 mm ([0012]) and teaches various exemplary cellulosic fillers having a particle size within the claimed range (e.g., Table 1A CF1, 0.5 mm). Koo and Ton are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, thermoplastic composites with naturally-derived fillers. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a particle size within the claimed range, such as that taught by Ton, and the motivation would have been that Ton teaches that such a particle size is recognized within the art as suitable for reinforcing polyolefin resins to improve mechanical properties (e.g., flexural properties, tensile properties, impact strength, see [0002] of Ton) thereof.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al. (KR101627616, English translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Koo”) in view of Lukko et al. (US20160082625, hereinafter referred to as “Lukko”).
As to Claim 6: Koo teaches the composition of claim 1 (see above).
Koo is silent towards the degree of crystallinity of the base resin. However, Koo teaches exemplary compositions wherein the species of the polypropylene resin is “Moplen EP640R” sold by PolyMirae ([0060]), for which evidence indicates has a 0.9 g/cm3, which is construed to meet the claimed “crystalline resin”).
Lukko teaches a composite comprising a matrix material which may be a polyolefin ([0029]) which may be polypropylene ([0030]) having an organic natural fiber (i.e., a plant filler) dispersed therein ([0041]). Lukko further teaches wherein the degree of crystallinity for semi-crystalline polymers may be 40 to 60% ([0032]), which is within the claimed range. Koo and Lukko are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, thermoplastic composites with naturally-derived fillers. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select polyolefin/polypropylene having a degree of crystallinity within the claimed range, such as that taught by Lukko, for the polypropylene resin of Koo and the motivation would have been that Lukko teaches that such a degree of crystallinity is suitable for blending thermoplastics with naturally-derived fibers. It has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination — see MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo et al. (KR101627616, English translation provided for citations, hereinafter referred to as “Koo”).
As to Claim 8: Koo teaches a resin composition and molded articles formed thereof ([0039]) comprising a polypropylene resin (i.e., a base resin as defined by the instant specification para. [0025]-[0026]), coffee grounds, and pulp ([0060], Example 7) (i.e., a first and second plant filler as defined by the instant specification para. [0030]-[0032]), and a compatibilizer ([0031]) which is a maleic anhydride-grafted polypropylene ([0031]-[(0032]). Koo further teaches an exemplary resin composition comprising 75 g of coffee grounds, 75 g of pulp (i.e., 50 mass% of a first plant filler and 50 mass% of a second plant filler). Koo further teaches exemplary compositions wherein the species of the polypropylene resin is “Moplen EP640R” sold by PolyMirae ([0060]), for which evidence indicates has a 0.9 g/cm3, which is construed to meet the claimed “crystalline resin”).
Koo is silent towards the triacylglycerol content of the coffee grounds and pulp (i.e., a first plant filler and a second plant filler). However, the species of plant filler disclosed by Koo reads on the species as defined by the instant specification (see para. [0030]-[0033]). The instant specification also discloses that the triacylglycerol content of the composition is derived from the plant filler ([0038]). The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by the reference. However, the reference teaches all of the claimed ingredients in the claimed amounts made by a substantially similar process. The original specification does not identify a feature that results in the claimed effect or physical property outside of the presence of the claimed components in the claimed amount (i.e., the plant filler components). Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. triacylglycerol content, would naturally arise and be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant’s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant’s position; and (2) it would be the Office’s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CULLEN L. G. DAVIDSON IV whose telephone number is (703)756-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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 on (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.
/C.L.G.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767
1 PolyMirae - Moplen EP640R - Product Description
Prosecution Insights