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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Claims 91-98, 105-106, and 188-190 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7 January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 91-98, 105-106, and 188-190 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2016/0121577 to Waggoner cited in previous Office action (herein Waggoner) and evidenced by U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2011/0003133 to Kumar et al. cited in Information Disclosure Statement filed 24 June 2024 (herein Kumar).
Regarding claims 91-98, 105-106, and 188-190, Waggoner teaches a layered structure made from polylactic acid (herein PLA) (abstract) having two cellular layers having small bubbles surrounding a core of large, elongated cells corresponding to the first and second outer regions and the inner region, respectively (paragraph 0035 and Fig 2) wherein the cells in the outer layers have a diameter of up to 50 µm and the cells in the core layer have a diameter of larger than 51 µm (paragraph 0035). Waggoner also teaches that the large cells of the core layer have a length to width aspect ratio of at least 3:1 (claim 10), and Fig 2 of Waggoner shows that the outer layers have pores that reach the surface of the layered structure. Waggoner teaches that the layered structure is made by extruding a solid thermoplastic material, saturating it with a high-pressure gas, heating the resulting polymer (paragraph 0054), and subsequently heating the polymer to allow the core layer to expand (paragraph 0055), i.e. subjecting the polymer to multistage heat flux at different temperatures, which is substantially similar to the process used to produce the claimed invention. Waggoner teaches that the polymeric material used in the layered structure is at least 60% PLA and has a crystallinity of at least 20% (claim 8) which overlaps the range recited in instant claims 91, 105, and 188. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Waggoner teaches that the polymeric material can also contain fillers such as 1 to 30 wt% talc (paragraph 0046). Waggoner teaches that the layered structure has a density of 5 to 70 percent that of solid PLA (paragraph 0060) which Kumar teaches is typically 1.21 to 1.43 g/cm3 (paragraph 0064). Combining these two teaches yields a range of density of the layered structure of about 0.061 to about 1 g/cm3 which overlaps the ranges recited in instant claims 97 and 98. Waggoner teaches that the products formed from the layered structure are able to withstand hot liquids of up to 212°F (paragraph 0044).
Waggoner is silent as to the layered structure having the various properties recited in the instant claims. However, Waggoner teaches that the layered structure has a substantially similar structure and is made using a substantially similar materials and a substantially similar process as the claimed invention. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the layered structure of Waggoner would also exhibit the claimed properties.
Response to Amendment
In view of Applicant’s amendments filed 7 January 2026, previous rejection of claim 105 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that tightly controlling the heat flux and/or employing a multi-stage heat flux during solid state expansion unexpectedly results in a unique hierarchical microstructure and distinct crystallinity profile (Remarks, page 6).
First, Waggoner teaches a multi-stage heat flux during solid state expansion, as discussed above.
Second, Applicant has provided no showing of evidence demonstrating any unexpected results. Applicant’s arguments do not take the place of evidence where evidence is necessary. See MPEP 2145(I). Applicant has provided no data or evidence demonstrating any differences between the prior art and the claimed invention.
Third, Applicant argues that the unexpected results arise from tightly controlling the heat flux during expansion; however, the claims merely lay out in a broad manner that a multi-stage heat flux having differing temperatures is used. No mention is made as to specific conditions or temperatures which might be indicative of such tight control. Furthermore, the section of the specification cited by Applicant (paragraphs 0033 and 0034) also provide no detail other than a generalized description of the expansion process with no specifics.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY M DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6957. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4:30, off 2nd Friday.
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, Maria V Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ZACHARY M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783