DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s argument filed on 7/15/2026 is persuasive, Non-Final rejection issued on 4/30/2026 is withdrawn and a new ground of rejection is set forth below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claims 2, 4, 6 are supported by the specification.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation a fatty acid with 5-30 carbon atoms, and the claim also recites lauric acid……and melissic acid which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation a fatty alcohol with 5-32 carbon atoms, and the claim also recites 1,16-hexadecanediol……and dotriacontanol which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-8, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uradnisheck (US 2009/0278279).
Uradnisheck teaches a composition comprising a polyhydroxyalkanoic acid and 0.1-4 wt% a nucleator [0015, 0027]. The PHA can be polyhydroxybutyrate [0017]. The nucleator can be two or more of nucleators such as fatty acid and fatty acid amide [0029]. The fatty acid amide can be erucamide or behenamide, the fatty acid can be stearic acid. Two or more of nucleators can be 1) a mixture of fatty acids, 2) a mixture of fatty acid amides, or 3) a mixture of fatty acid(s) and fatty acid amide(s).
Uradnisheck exemplifies two examples one containing 1wt% of a fatty acid of stearic acid and one containing 1wt% of a fatty acid amide of behenamide (examples). Case law holds that “it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). It results in a new composition comprising 0.5wt% of fatty acid amide and 0.5wt% of fatty acid. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to recognize a nucleator mixture comprising 0.5wt% of a fatty acid amide such as erucamide and 0.5 wt% of a fatty acid such as stearic acid.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENWEN CAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3590. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on (571)272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEN CAI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights