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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending in the current application.
Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from consideration in the current application.
Claim 13 is newly added in the current application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9 and 13) in the reply filed on July 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 2 and 6 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.
Claim 2 recites the relative term “rigid thermoplastic” that renders the claim indefinite. The term “rigid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a clear standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification as originally filed at [00065] recites “the term ‘rigid thermoplastic polymer(s)’ generally means a polymer having a glass transition (Tg) value above room temperature (25 oC), greater than about 26, …, or 240 oC, and/or less than about 250, …, 35 or 30 oC. The rigid thermoplastic polymers may have high modulus values making them suitable for applications requiring stiffness and strength.” This recitation provides unclear guidance by utilizing the terms “generally” and “about” that add ambiguity, and therefore, does not provide clear and definitive scope of the characteristics and/or properties required to satisfy the claimed term “rigid.” The specification as originally filed at [00024] recites “[i]n one aspect, the term ‘about’ means plus or minus 20% of the numerical value of the number with which it is being used,” where it is unclear if this “one aspect” should be applied consistently and uniformly in every instance. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “a rigid thermoplastic polymer having a glass transition temperature (Tg) of greater than 25 oC to less than 250 oC.”
Claim 6 recites the relative term “low melting temperature polyamide polymer” that renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a clear standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification as originally filed at [000101] recites “the low melting temperature polyamide polymer refers to a polyamide polymer having a melting point in a range from about 150 to about 200 oC.” This recitation provides unclear guidance by utilizing the term “about” that adds ambiguity, and therefore, does not provide clear and definitive scope of the characteristics and/or properties required to satisfy the claimed term “low melting temperature.” The specification as originally filed at [00024] recites “[i]n one aspect, the term ‘about’ means plus or minus 20% of the numerical value of the number with which it is being used,” where it is unclear if this “one aspect” should be applied consistently and uniformly in every instance. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as reciting “a low melting temperature polyamide polymer having a melting point in a range from 150 oC to 200 oC.”
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by McGrady et al. (US 2021/0171741 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, McGrady teaches a polymer composition comprising a bio-based polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer and a cellulose acetate polymer (i.e., a cellulose ester polymer) (McGrady, [0008], [0014]-[0015], [0071]-[0080]). McGrady teaches the bio-based polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer can be a copolymer that is amorphous (McGrady, [0072]-[0082]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, McGrady teaches the cellulose acetate polymer (cellulose ester polymer) has a glass transition temperature (Tg) of 160 oC to 180 oC (McGrady, [0075]). This range falls within the claimed ranges (25 oC to 250 oC for claim 2; 25 oC to 220 oC for claim 3), and therefore, satisfies the claimed ranges (MPEP 2131.03). McGrady teaches the cellulose acetate polymer (cellulose ester polymer) is stiff (i.e., rigid) (McGrady, [0006], [0008], [0082]).
Regarding Claim 4, McGrady teaches the polymer composition comprises the bio-based polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer and the cellulose acetate polymer (cellulose ester polymer) (McGrady, [0008], [0014]-[0015], [0071]-[0080]). McGrady does not require that a polyolefin is present within the composition, and only suggests that other bio-based polymers may be incorporated, where such bio-based polymer include polyester or polyolefin polymers (McGrady, [0093]). McGrady also does not disclose any embodiments containing polyolefins (McGrady, All). In view of the foregoing, one skilled in the art would readily understand that McGrady’s polymer composition does not require and does not necessarily include a polyolefin.
Regarding Claim 7, McGrady teaches the amorphous polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer has crystallinity of less than about 5% (McGrady, [0073], [0082]). McGrady’s range is substantially identical to the claimed range of less than 5%, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 13, McGrady teaches the amorphous polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer is a copolymer of 3-hydroxybutyrate (3HB) monomer and other monomer units (McGrady, [0077]-[0078], [0080]-[0081]). McGrady teaches the other monomer units can include 4-hydroxybutyrate (McGrady, [0078], [0080]).
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weinlein et al. (US 2017/0166740 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Weinlein teaches a polymer composition comprising a polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer and a polyoxymethylene polymer (i.e., an acetal polymer) (Weinlein, Abstract, [0005]-[0007], [0022], [0071]-[0095]). Weinlein teaches the polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer can be a copolymer that is amorphous (Weinlein, Abstract, [0020]-[0022], [0080]-[0082]).
Regarding Claim 5, Weinlein teaches polymer composition comprises the polyoxymethylene polymer (acetal polymer) (Weinlein, Abstract, [0005]-[0007], [0022], [0071]-[0075]).
Regarding Claim 7, Weinlein teaches the polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer has a crystallinity of about 0.5 to 5% (Weinlein, [0006], [0037]). Weinlein’s range falls within the claimed range of less than 5%, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 13, Weinlein teaches the amorphous polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer is a copolymer of 3-hydroxybutyrate (3HB) monomer and other monomer units (Weinlein, [0080]-[0082], [0091]). Weinlein teaches the other monomer unit includes 4-hydroxybutyrate (4HB) (Weinlein, [0080]-[0082], [0092]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrady et al. (US 2021/0171741 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hale (US 2005/0154114 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, McGrady teaches the polymer composition as discussed above for claim 1. McGrady suggests that other bio-based polymers may be incorporated, where such bio-based polymer include polyester or polyolefin polymers (McGrady, [0093]).
McGrady remains silent regarding a low melting temperature polyamide polymer.
Hale teaches a polymer composition comprising a biodegradable polymer and a rigid biodegradable polymer (Hale, Abstract, [0009]-[0014]). Hale teaches the biodegradable polymer can be a polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer (Hale, [0037]-[0039]). Hale teaches the rigid biodegradable polymer can be a polyesteramide polymer having a melting point (Tm) of 175 oC (Hale, [0075]-[0083]). Hale’s Tm value falls within the claimed range of 150 oC to 200 oC, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Since McGrady and Hale both disclose polymer compositions comprising polyhydroxyalkanoate polymers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added Hale’s polyesteramide polymer into McGrady’s polymers to yield a composition that exhibits improved processability, good strength and impact properties, and increased temperature stability as taught by Hale (Hale, [0002], [0008]-[0009], [0030]-[0031], [0083]).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGrady et al. (US 2021/0171741 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 8, McGrady teaches the polymer composition as discussed above for claim 1. McGrady teaches the amorphous polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer is a copolymer of 3-hydroxybutyrate (3HB) monomer and other monomer units, where the 3HB monomer is at least 70% by weight (McGrady, [0077]-[0078], [0080]-[0081]). McGrady’s range overlaps the claimed range of 55 to 75 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 9, McGrady teaches the polymer composition as discussed above for claim 1. McGrady teaches the amorphous polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer is a copolymer of 3-hydroxybutyrate (3HB) monomer and other monomer units, where the 3HB monomer is at least 70% by weight (McGrady, [0077]-[0078], [0080]-[0081]). McGrady teaches the other monomer units include 4-hydroxybutyrate, 3-hydroxypropionate, 3-hydroxyhexanoate, 3-hydroxyoctanoate, 3-hydroxyvalerate, 4-hydroxyvalerate, 5-hydroxyvalerate, and/or 6-hydroxyhexanoate (McGrady, [0078], [0080]-[0081]). Since the 3HB monomer is at least 70% by weight, the remainder of the other monomers is 30% by weight or less. McGrady’s range overlaps the claimed range of 25 to 45 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Weinlein et al. (US 2017/0166740 A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 8, Weinlein teaches the polymer composition as discussed above for claim 1. Weinlein teaches the amorphous polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer is a copolymer of 3-hydroxybutyrate (3HB) monomer and other monomer units, where the 3HB monomer content can be from 5-80% by weight (Weinlein, [0091]). Weinlein’s range encompasses the claimed range of 55 to 75 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 9, Weinlein teaches the polymer composition as discussed above for claim 1. Weinlein teaches the amorphous polyhydroxyalkanoate polymer is a copolymer of 3-hydroxybutyrate (3HB) monomer and other monomer units (Weinlein, [0080]-[0082], [0091]). Weinlein teaches the other monomer unit includes 4-hydroxybutyrate (4HB) in an amount 25-95% by weight (Weinlein, [0080]-[0082], [0092]). Weinlein’s range encompasses the claimed range of 25 to 45 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 pm.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights