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 .
The office action is in response to the application filed on 9/25/2023.
Claim Analysis
Summary of Claim 1:
Molding material
Linear alkyl-based polyester
Highly polar polyester
Cellulose fiber
Linear alkyl-based polyester content greater than highly polar polyester content
Total polyester content is less than or equal to a content of the cellulose fiber
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laakkonen et al. (US20210388201) in view of Matsunaga et al. (JP2021161337A).
With respect to claim 1, Laakkonen teaches a molding material. Specifically, Laakkonen teaches reinforced biodegradable composite material suitable for molding applications, wherein the molding material comprises a polymer blend including polylactic acid (PLA) and polybutylene succinic acid (PBS) to provide molded articles exhibiting improved mechanical properties, heat resistance and toughness (Abstract; [0010] – [0018]; Claim 1 and 11). Laakkonen further teaches a linear alkyl-based polyester, Specifically Laakkonen teaches polybutylene succinate (PBS), a biodegradable aliphatic polyester prepared from succinate acid and 1,4-butanediol (0022]). PBS therefore corresponds to the claimed linear alkyl-based polyester. Laakkonen further teaches a highly polar polyester. Specifically, Laakkonen teaches polylactic acid (PLA) as the second polyester component of the polymer blend ([0018] – [0021]). PLA therefore corresponds to the claimed highly polar polyester. Laakkonen further teaches the content of the linear alkyl-based polyester is greater than the content of the highly polar polyester. Specifically, Laakkonen teaches polymer blends comprising about 20-60 wt.% PLA and about 40-80 wt.% PBS, including embodiments comprising about 40 wt.% PLA and 60 wt.% PBS ([0029]; Claim 1). Accordingly, Laakkonen teaches embodiments in which the amount of PBS exceeds the amount of PLA.
However, Laakkonen does not expressly teach cellulose fibers as recited in claim 1. Further Laakkonen does not expressly teach that the total content of the linear alkyl-based polyester and highly polar polyester is less than or equal to the cellulose fiber content.
Matsunaga teaches cellulose nanofibers incorporated into biodegradable material. Specifically, Matsunaga teaches cellulose nanofibers as the principal fiber component used together with the biodegradable polyester binder fibers ([0006 – [0010]). The disclosed cellulose nanofiber corresponds to the claimed cellulose fibers. Matsunaga further, in Example 1, a composition comprising approximately 60 wt.% cellulose nanofibers and approximately 40 wt.% biodegradable polyester binder fibers ([0035] – [0036]). According Matsunaga teaches a composition in which the cellulose fiber content exceeds the polyester binder content, thereby supplying the limitation not expressly taught by Laakkonen.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the cellulose nanofiber reinforcement of Matsunaga into the biodegradable polyester molding composition of Laakkonen because Matsunaga teaches that cellulose fibers improve strength and stiffness while maintaining biodegradability. Such a substitution replaces one known reinforcing material with another known reinforcing material to obtain the predictable improvement in mechanical properties expected from cellulose reinforcement. See KSR Int’l Co. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); MPEP 2143 (I)(B), 2143(I)(C). 2144.04, and 2145. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable of Laakkonen in view of Matsunaga.
With respect to claim 2, Laakkonen teaches biodegradable polyester compositions comprising polybutylene succinate (PBS) and polylactic acid (PLA). Matsunaga further teaches binder fibers comprising polyalkylene succinate copolymerized with up to 10 mol. % Lactic acid ([0001]). Although Matsunaga does not expressly disclose the exact “100 parts by mass/10 parts by mass” relationship recited in claim 2, Matsunaga teaches incorporation of lactic acid into polyalkylene succinate binder polymer at amounts up to 10 mol.%, thereby rendering the claimed ratio a matter of routine optimization.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to employ the relative amounts taught by Matsunaga in biodegradable molding composition of Laakkonen as a matter of routine optimization to obtain a composition having the desired properties. See MPEP 2144.05 and 2144.06. Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laakkonen in view of Matsunaga.
With respect to claim 3, Laakkonen expressly teaches that the highly polar polyester is polylactic acid (PLA) ([0018] – [0021, [0029]). Laakkonen teaches the additional limitation recited in claim 3. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laakkonen in view of Matsunaga.
With respect to claim 4 Laakkonen expressly teaches polybutylene succinate (PBS) as the linear alkyl-based polyester ([0022]; claim 1). Accordingly, Laakkonen teaches the additional limitation recited in claim 4. Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laakkonen in view of Matsunaga.
With respect to claim 5, Matsunaga expressly teaches cellulose nanofibers as the principal fiber component of the disclosed biodegradable material ([002], [0006] – [0008]). The disclosed cellulose nanofibers correspond to the claimed cellulose fibers. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laakkonen in view of Matsunaga.
With respect to claim 6, Matsunaga teaches that incorporation of cellulose nanofibers with biodegradable polyester binder fibers provides nonwoven material exhibiting practical strength together with flexibility and improved sheet quality ([005], [0010], [0014]). While Matsunaga discusses these properties in the context of nonwoven material rather than a molded composition, the reference nevertheless teaches that cellulose nanofiber reinforcement improves the mechanical properties of biodegradable polymer materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to expect similar reinforcing benefits when incorporating the cellulose nanofibers of Matsunaga into the biodegradable polyester molding compositions of Laakkonen. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laakkonen in view of Matsunaga.
With respect to claim 7, Laakkonen teaches molding the disclosed reinforced biodegradable polyester compositions into molded articles ([0060]- [0061]. According, Laakkonen teaches the additional limitation recited in claim 7. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laakkonen in view of Matsunaga.
With respect to claim 8, Matsunaga teaches that the binder fibers may optionally contain flame retardants amounts of various conventional additives ([0021]). Laakkonen likewise teaches incorporation of flame retardants into the disclosed biodegradable polyester compositions, including Exolit AP22, pentaerythritol phosphate (PEPA), melamine phosphate (MP), and polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes (POSS), and further teaches flame-retardant amounts ranging from 0.01 wt.% to about 30 wt.% including embodiments of about 0.1-20 wt.%, 0.5-15 wt.% and 3-12 wt.% ([0038]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to incorporate the flame retardant taught by Laakkonen into the biodegradable compositions modified according to Matsunaga in order to impart improved flame resistance while maintaining the desirable mechanical and biodegradable properties of the composition. See MPEP 2144.05 and 2144.06. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laakkonen in view of Matsunaga.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK ROY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0205. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK ROY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0205. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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.
/PATRICK ROY THOMAS/ Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ROBERT C BOYLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights