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 Status Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshihito et al (herein ‘Yoshihito’; JP 2016 / 155908 A , all references are drawn to the English machine translation ) . Yoshihito discloses the preparation of poly-L-lactide from the ring-opening polymerization of monomeric L-lactide using a stannous octoate catalyst in supercritical carbon dioxide environment [p . 0062-0063]. Furthermore, Yoshihito discloses that polymerization terminators, such as acetic acid, may be used after the polymerization reaction [p. 0037]. 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1-4 and 7- 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihito et al (herein ‘Yoshihito’; JP 2016 / 155908 A , all references are drawn to the English machine translation ) . Yoshihito teaches a polylactic acid resin composition having a rapid crystallization rate with high heat resistance and transparency , and a molded article thereof [p. 0001 , 0012 ] . Yoshihito teaches the obtained polylactic acid s have a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 30 0,000 Da or more and 2 ,000,000 Da or less , and a YI of 15 or less [p. 0013, 0058, 0059 , 0079]. Yoshihito exemplifies the preparation of a 300 kDa poly-L-lactide from monomeric L-lactide, a 1-hexanol initiator, a stannous octoate catalyst, with the use of supercritical carbon dioxide [p. 0062-0063]. Yoshihito teaches the polymer composition may further comprise additives , such as polymerization terminator s , catalyst deactivators, and polymer stabilizers [p. 0037]. Yoshihito teaches polymerization terminator s, such as acetic acid, may be used after the polymerization reaction [p. 0037]. Yoshihito teaches phosphoric acid-based catalyst deactivators are preferably used [p. 0046]. Yoshihito teaches, as the stabilizer, epoxidized soybean oil, carbodiimide and the like are used [p. 0040] . Yoshihito teaches t he blending amount of the additive varies depending on the purpose of addition and the type of the additive, but is preferably 0 parts by mass or more and 5 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polymer composition [p. 0037]. Yoshihito further teaches, after polymerization, remaining lactide is removed from the polylactic acid in order to increase polymer stability [p. 0056]. In light of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to prepare a poly-L-lactide having a Mw of 300,000 Da to 2,000,000 Da , a YI of 15 or less , that is essentially free of residual monomer . Yoshihito teaches the composition may further comprise phosphoric acid-based catalyst deactivators and carbodiimide stabilizers at an amount of 5 parts by mass or less with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polymer composition , which reads over compositions comprising 99.5% or more polylactic acid and 0.5% or less additive . Regarding instant claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13 and 14 : In the case where the 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, Yoshihito is silent with respect to the complex viscosity of the polylactic acid resin, however, a skilled artisan would reasonably predict embodiments of Yoshihito to obviously satisfy the claimed complex viscosities as the teachings of Yoshihito satisfy all chemical/material limitations of the claimed invention. In addition to chemical and material limitations, embodiments of the process of Yoshihito that utilize acetic acid as a polymerization terminator align with the process of applicants’ exemplary embodiments, particularly example 4 . Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihito et al (herein ‘Yoshihito’; JP 2016 / 155908 A , all references are drawn to the English machine translation ) as e videnced by Zhou et al ( US 2020 / 0263063 A1 ) . Yoshihito is silent with respect to the melt flow rate of the polylactic acid (PLA) polymers. However, it is known in the art that t he melt flow rate is related to the molecular weight of the PLA polymer , as evidenced by Zhou et al [p. 0059]. In light of this, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would reasonably predict embodiments of Yoshihito to satisfy the claimed melt flow rates when tested under the same conditions as Yoshihito teaches the PLA has a Mw of 300,000 Da to 2,000,000 Da , which encompasses the Mw range of applicants’ exemplary embodiments. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al (US 2004/0072985 A1) exemplifies the preparation of poly-L-lactide having a Mw of 300 kDa and 350 kDa [examples 1 and 9]. Kiyotsuna et al (JP 2008/069271 A; citations directed toward English machine translation) teaches the preparation of polylactide having a Mw of 120 kDa to 500 kDa [p. 0009] Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT HOLLEY GRACE HESTER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-5435 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:00AM -5:00PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Randy Gulakowski can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1302 . 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. /HOLLEY GRACE HESTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1766 /RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766