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
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 8 and 17-20 are 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.
Regarding claim 8, the preamble of the claim 8 recites “A blend including the thermoplastic starch-based material of claim 7.” First, the use of “A blend” is unclear as to if this claim is describing a new blend or the blend of claim 7 from which it depends. Second, the thermoplastic starch-based material is not of claim 7; it is of claim 1. For the purpose of further examination, the claim will be interpreted as “The blend of claim 7, wherein the cellulosic nano or micro particles or fibers of the thermoplastic starch-based material are substantially…”.
Regarding claim 17, in line 4, the claim first recites nano or micro particles and then recites nano or micro particles or fibers. Additionally, in line 6, only particles are recited. It is unclear if fibers are to be included in claim 17. For the purpose of further examination, the claim will be interpreted as to only refer to nano or micro particles.
Regarding claims 18-20, these claims depend from a rejected claim and include all of the limitations thereof. Therefore, they are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pesaran et al. (WO 2020/089671).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 9, Pesaran et al. teaches a thermoplastic starch (TPS) nanocomposite comprising a TPS matrix and a plurality of cellulosic nanofibers dispersed within the TPS matrix (¶5), wherein the TPS matrix is formed by mixing an amount of starch with glycerin and distilled water as plasticizers (¶42), and wherein the cellulosic nanofibers have a diameter between about 20 nm and about 100 nm (¶44). The TPS/0.5 phr sample of Table 1 is formed from 51.3% starch, 28% glycerin and 14% water as plasticizers, 0.2% citric acid, 0.5% zeolite, and 6% cellulosic nanofibers (¶43). The 6% of cellulosic nanofibers falls within the claimed range of from about 1% to about 10% by weight of the starch-based material. A mixture is formed by mixing citric acid, zeolite, and the cellulosic nanofibers into the TPS matrix until a homogenous mixture is obtained (¶44), and the homogenous mixture is then melt blended using a twin-screw extruder having a length to diameter ratio of about 20 at a motor speed of about 15 Hz and at a temperature of about 140° C (¶45). Pesaran et al. further teaches that the cellulosic nanofibers are uniformly dispersed in the TPS matrix, as shown by scanning electron microscopy of the fabricated nanocomposite (¶46, 48; FIGs. 3A-3C).
Claims 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Mentink et al. (US 2011/0086949).
Regarding claims 17, 19, and 20, Mentink et al. teaches a thermoplastic composition comprising an amylaceous composition comprising a starch (¶39, 40) and a plasticizer of the starch (¶61), together with a nanometric product composed of particles having at least one dimension of between 0.1 and 500 nanometers (¶28). The destructuring of the semicrystalline native granular state of the starch in order to produce thermoplastic amorphous starches is carried out by extrusion (¶16). In Example 1, a twin-screw extruder is fed with wheat starch (¶257) and a plasticizer at a mixing ratio of 67 parts of Polysorb G84/41/00 per 100 parts of wheat starch (¶265), the Polysorb G84/41/00 being a concentrated aqueous composition of the polyols sorbitol and glycerol (¶258). The nanometric products employed include a pyrogenic silica of approximately 15 nm sold under the name Aerosil 200 (¶260), a hydrophobic silica of approximately 25 nm sold under the name Aerosil R 974 (¶261 ), and nanometric particles of calcium carbonate of approximately 70 nm sold under the name LAB 4020 (¶263). A thermoplastic composition is thus obtained which is very homogeneous, as can be observed by observation under a microscope (¶206). Mentink et al. further teaches that the nanometric product may be a lamellar clay made of nano layers having a thickness generally of between 0.1 and 50 nanometers, known in particular under the names of montmorillonite, bentonite, saponite, hydrotalcite, hectorite, fluorohectorite, attapulgite, beidellite, nontronite, vermiculite and halloysite (¶126). It is well known in the art that montmorillonite and bentonite are aluminum silicates, and that attapulgite is a magnesium aluminum silicate.
Therefore, the nanometric products of Mentink et al. meet the limitations of silica and calcium carbonate of claim 17, of aluminum silicate and magnesium silicate of claim 19, and are inorganic mineral nano or micro particles as recited in claim 20.
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.
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesaran et al. (WO 2020/089671), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 4-6, Pesaran et al. teaches the thermoplastic starch-based material of claim 1 as set forth above, including a starch-based material which comprises 0.2% by weight of citric acid as a rheological enhancer. Pesaran et al. does not teach an example in which the rheological enhancer is a diacid rather than citric acid. However, Pesaran et al. does teach that the rheological enhancer may include at least one of citric acid and maleic acid (¶37). Maleic acid is a dicarboxylic acid (diacid). Pesaran et al. thus identifies citric acid and maleic acid as alternatives for the same purpose within the same composition. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use maleic acid as the rheological enhancer of the thermoplastic starch nanocomposite in place of the citric acid used in the examples, and would have been motivated to do so because citric acid and maleic acid are art recognized equivalents used as rheological enhancers in thermoplastic starch compositions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in substituting one for the other. MPEP 2144.06 II. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would also use the maleic acid in 0.2% by weight based on the art recognized equivalence of the components.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesaran et al. (WO 2020/089671) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Glenn et al. (US 2007/0021534).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Pesaran et al. teaches the thermoplastic starch-based material of claim 1 as forth above. Pesaran et al. does not teach that the thermoplastic starch-based material is blended with at least one of PLA, PBAT, PBS, PHA, another polyester, a polyamide, a polyolefin or polystyrene. However, Glenn et al. teaches a starch-based and fiber-reinforced composition comprising gelatinized starch, water, and fibers, wherein the gelatinized starch, water, and fibers are mixed together under high shear to form a fibrous mixture having the fibers substantially homogeneously dispersed therethrough, a non-volatile plasticizer mixed with at least one of the gelatinized starch or non-gelatinized starch so as to form a plasticized starch, and a water resistant polymer mixed with the plasticized starch in an amount and distribution sufficient for the plasticized starch to behave in a thermoplastic manner (claim 1). The water-resistant polymer is selected from the group consisting of poly(ethylene-vinyl alcohol), poly(ethylene-vinyl acetate), poly(vinyl alcohol), poly(butylene succinate), poly(butylene succinate-co-adipate), poly(butyrate adipate terephthalate ), adipic acid, aliphatic/aromatic copolyesters, poly(lactic acid), polycaprolactone, poly(hydroxy alkanoates), poly(hydroxybutyrate), poly(hydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyvaleric acid), polyterephthalate derivatives, and poly(tetramethylene adipate-co-terephthalate) ( claim 2), and is present at a concentration of from about 5% to about 50% by dry weight (claim 3). The non-volatile plasticizer is a polyol, glycerin, or sorbitol, present at from about 1% to about 3.5% by dry weight ( claim 2). The fibers are naturally occurring organic fibers extracted from hemp, cotton, plant leaves, hard woods, soft woods, or stems (¶36), and are present in a range of from about 1% to about 50% by weight of the dry components within the composition (¶38). Glenn et al. further teaches that the non-volatile plasticizer, water-resistant polymer, and non-gelatinized starch are mixed into the fibrous mixture after the fibers have been homogeneously dispersed therethrough so as to form a thermoplastic fiber-reinforced and starch-based composition having homogeneously dispersed fibers ( claim 1 ). The composition so formed contains the water-resistant polymer, and therefore Glenn et al. teaches a composition in which the fibers are homogeneously dispersed throughout both the starch-based material and the water-resistant polymer with which it is combined. The instant specification describes the same result obtained in the same manner, stating that the hemp fibers are distributed in the starch matrix and polyethylene matrix in a substantially uniform manner and that the addition of the polyethylene was completed after formation of the starch-based polymeric material, which included the hemp fiber or particle additive (¶32 in the instant PG-PUB).
Pesaran et al. and Glenn et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of thermoplastic starch compositions reinforced with fibers. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to blend the thermoplastic starch-based material of Pesaran et al., having the cellulosic nanofibers uniformly dispersed therethrough, with a water-resistant polymer such as poly(lactic acid), poly(butyrate adipate terephthalate ), poly(butylene succinate ), or poly(hydroxy alkanoates), as taught by Glenn et al., and would have been motivated to do so because Glenn et al. teaches that the water-resistant polymer is mixed with the plasticized starch in an amount and distribution sufficient for the plasticized starch to behave in a thermoplastic manner ( claim 1 ), and because Pesaran et al. teaches that thermoplastic starch may have a poor water resistance and may lose its stability in contact with high humidity if not blended with other components to improve its mechanical properties and increase its water resistance (¶29).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesaran et al. (WO 2020/089671).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Pesaran et al. teaches a thermoplastic starch (TPS) nanocomposite comprising a TPS matrix and a plurality of cellulosic nanofibers dispersed within the TPS matrix (¶5), wherein the TPS matrix is formed by mixing an amount of starch with glycerin and distilled water as plasticizers (¶42), and wherein the cellulosic nanofibers have a diameter between about 20 nm and about 100 nm (¶44). The TPS/0.5 phr sample of Table 1 is formed from 51.3% starch, 28% glycerin and 14% water as plasticizers, 0.2% citric acid (rheological enhancer; a triacid), 0.5% zeolite, and 6% cellulosic nanofibers (¶43). The 6% of cellulosic nanofibers falls within the claimed range of from about 1% to about 10% by weight of the starch-based material. A mixture is formed by mixing citric acid, zeolite, and the cellulosic nanofibers into the TPS matrix until a homogenous mixture is obtained (¶44), and the homogenous mixture is then melt blended using a twin-screw extruder having a length to diameter ratio of about 20 at a motor speed of about 15 Hz and at a temperature of about 140° C (¶45). Pesaran et al. further teaches that the cellulosic nanofibers are uniformly dispersed in the TPS matrix, as shown by scanning electron microscopy of the fabricated nanocomposite (¶46, 48; FIGs. 3A-3C).
Pesaran et al. does not teach an example in which the rheological enhancer is a diacid rather than citric acid. However, Pesaran et al. does teach that the rheological enhancer may include at least one of citric acid and maleic acid (¶37). Maleic acid is a dicarboxylic acid (diacid). Pesaran et al. thus identifies citric acid and maleic acid as alternatives for the same purpose within the same composition. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use maleic acid as the rheological enhancer of the thermoplastic starch nanocomposite in place of the citric acid used in the examples, and would have been motivated to do so because citric acid and maleic acid are art recognized equivalents used as rheological enhancers in thermoplastic starch compositions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in substituting one for the other. MPEP 2144.06 II. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would also use the maleic acid in 0.2% by weight based on the art recognized equivalence of the components.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesaran et al. (WO 2020/089671) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of LaPray et al. (US 20l7/0002184).
Regarding claim 12, Pesaran et al. teaches the thermoplastic starch-based material of claim 10 as set forth above. Pesaran et al. does not teach that the thermoplastic starch-based material includes less than about 0.8% water content. However, LaPray et al. teaches a starch-based polymeric material formed from a starch and a plasticizer (¶85), wherein the material includes no greater than about 1 % by weight water (¶37). LaPray et al. further teaches seventeen starch-based polymers containing 27% tallow glycerin and 73% starch, the measured water contents of which are reported in Table 7 and include values of 0.49%, 0.55%, 0.58%, and 0.73% by weight (¶109, Example 3, Table 7). These starch-based polymers were prepared in order to test the strength characteristics of various combinations of starch, and the resulting films were tested by a falling dart drop impact test according to ASTM D1709 (¶109, Example 3). Pesaran et al. and LaPray et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of thermoplastic starch-based polymeric materials formed from one or more starches and a plasticizer. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the thermoplastic starch-based material, as taught by Pesaran et al., with a water content of less than about 0.8% by weight, as taught by LaPray et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a starch-based polymeric material having the strength characteristics taught by LaPray et al. (¶109, Example 3, Table 7).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesaran et al. (WO 2020/089671) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Narayan et al. (US 2006/0252901).
Regarding claims 13-15, Pesaran et al. teaches the thermoplastic starch-based material of claim 10 as set forth above. Pesaran et al. does not teach that the thermoplastic starch-based material further comprises a glyceride present in an amount of from about 1% to about 10% by weight. However, Narayan et al. teaches starch-vegetable oil graft copolymers wherein the oils are unsaturated fatty acids (triglycerides) obtained from plant-based resources (¶41). The preferred oils are corn, soybean and mixtures thereof, and their maleated and epoxidized versions (¶41). The concentration of the oils in the starch-vegetable oil graft copolymers is 1% to 10% by weight (¶41). The triglycerides of Narayan et al. are glycerides comprising a fatty acid residue. Narayan et al. teaches that the resulting blend system is compatibilized and contains fully biodegradable components for making moldable products (¶51). Pesaran et al. and Narayan et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of thermoplastic starch compositions reinforced with cellulosic fibers. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include a vegetable oil triglyceride in an amount of 1% to 10% by weight, as taught by Narayan et al., in the thermoplastic starch nanocomposite, as taught by Pesaran et al., and would have been motivated to do so because Pesaran et al. teaches that the thermoplastic starch nanocomposite may include a slippery agent additive, which may be a fatty acid or a vegetable oil (¶36, 37), and Narayan et al. teaches that vegetable oils are suitable for use in starch-based compositions.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pesaran et al. (WO 2020/089671) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Glenn et al. (US 2007/0021534).
Regarding claim 16, Pesaran et al. teaches the thermoplastic starch-based material of claim 10 as forth above. Pesaran et al. does not teach that the thermoplastic starch-based material is blended with at least one of PLA, PBAT, PBS, PHA, another polyester, a polyamide, a polyolefin or polystyrene. However, Glenn et al. teaches a starch-based and fiber-reinforced composition comprising gelatinized starch, water, and fibers, wherein the gelatinized starch, water, and fibers are mixed together under high shear to form a fibrous mixture having the fibers substantially homogeneously dispersed therethrough, a non-volatile plasticizer mixed with at least one of the gelatinized starch or non-gelatinized starch so as to form a plasticized starch, and a water resistant polymer mixed with the plasticized starch in an amount and distribution sufficient for the plasticized starch to behave in a thermoplastic manner (claim 1). The water-resistant polymer is selected from the group consisting of poly(ethylene-vinyl alcohol), poly(ethylene-vinyl acetate), poly(vinyl alcohol), poly(butylene succinate), poly(butylene succinate-co-adipate), poly(butyrate adipate terephthalate ), adipic acid, aliphatic/aromatic copolyesters, poly(lactic acid), polycaprolactone, poly(hydroxy alkanoates), poly(hydroxybutyrate), poly(hydroxybutyrate-co-hydroxyvaleric acid), polyterephthalate derivatives, and poly(tetramethylene adipate-co-terephthalate) ( claim 2), and is present at a concentration of from about 5% to about 50% by dry weight (claim 3). The non-volatile plasticizer is a polyol, glycerin, or sorbitol, present at from about 1% to about 3.5% by dry weight ( claim 2). The fibers are naturally occurring organic fibers extracted from hemp, cotton, plant leaves, hard woods, soft woods, or stems (¶36), and are present in a range of from about 1% to about 50% by weight of the dry components within the composition (¶38). Glenn et al. further teaches that the non-volatile plasticizer, water-resistant polymer, and non-gelatinized starch are mixed into the fibrous mixture after the fibers have been homogeneously dispersed therethrough so as to form a thermoplastic fiber-reinforced and starch-based composition having homogeneously dispersed fibers ( claim 1 ). The composition so formed contains the water-resistant polymer, and therefore Glenn et al. teaches a composition in which the fibers are homogeneously dispersed throughout both the starch-based material and the water-resistant polymer with which it is combined. The instant specification describes the same result obtained in the same manner, stating that the hemp fibers are distributed in the starch matrix and polyethylene matrix in a substantially uniform manner and that the addition of the polyethylene was completed after formation of the starch-based polymeric material, which included the hemp fiber or particle additive (¶32 in the instant PG-PUB).
Pesaran et al. and Glenn et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of thermoplastic starch compositions reinforced with fibers. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to blend the thermoplastic starch-based material of Pesaran et al., having the cellulosic nanofibers uniformly dispersed therethrough, with a water-resistant polymer such as poly(lactic acid), poly(butyrate adipate terephthalate ), poly(butylene succinate ), or poly(hydroxy alkanoates), as taught by Glenn et al., and would have been motivated to do so because Glenn et al. teaches that the water-resistant polymer is mixed with the plasticized starch in an amount and distribution sufficient for the plasticized starch to behave in a thermoplastic manner ( claim 1 ), and because Pesaran et al. teaches that thermoplastic starch may have a poor water resistance and may lose its stability in contact with high humidity if not blended with other components to improve its mechanical properties and increase its water resistance (¶29).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mentink et al. (US 2011/0086949) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Lynch (WO 2022/071802).
Regarding claim 18, Mentink et al. teaches the thermoplastic starch-based material of claim 17 as set forth above. Mentink et al. does not teach that the nano or micro particles comprise peralkaline igneous rock, comprising one or more of Si, Al, Na, Fe or Ca. However, Lynch teaches a polymer composite comprising a biodegradable polymer, a whole grain flour of a cereal grass, a plasticizer, and a filler (Page 3, lines 25-35), wherein suitable mineral fillers include carbonates, phosphates, ferrocyanides, silica, silicates, aluminosilicates (including all forms of clay minerals, mica and talc), and titanium dioxide (Page 8, lines 5-10). Lynch further teaches that, for instance, a nepheline syenite may be used or any similar filler derived from silica-undersaturated and peralkaline igneous rocks, as well as any type of bentonite (Page 8, lines 5-10). The filler may be used in an amount from 0 to 96% by weight of the overall mixture, preferably between 1 and 40% by weight of the overall mixture (Page 8, lines 15-16). In Example 15, 100 grams of Hifill N800 nepheline syenite powder is combined with 150 grams of poly lactic acid, 192 grams of whole-grain winter triticale flour, and 58 grams of xylitol powder to form a homogenous mixture (Page 12, lines 1-5), which is 20% by weight nepheline syenite (calculated by Examiner; 100/500 = 20%). It is well known in the art that nepheline syenite is a sodium potassium aluminosilicate rock comprising silicon, aluminum, and sodium.
Mentink et al. and Lynch are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of biodegradable polymer compositions containing mineral fillers. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use nepheline syenite derived from a silica-undersaturated and peralkaline igneous rock, as taught by Lynch, in the nanometric mineral product in the thermoplastic composition, as taught by Mentink et al., and would have been motivated to do so because Lynch teaches that this compound is suitable for use as a mineral filler in biodegradable compositions. It is obvious to choose a known material or process based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP 2144.07.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, EST.
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 at 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights