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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/20/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 11-19 in the reply filed on 2/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/23/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 11-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laporte (US 2020/0368955 A1), in view of Sun (CN111116997A; of record, further translation provided).
Regarding claim 11, Laporte teaches a method of making drinking straws (paragraph 0006) comprising:
providing a straw manufacturing machine (Figure 1; paragraph 0020) comprising:
one or more material sources, each configured to store a material (102; paragraph 0021);
an extruder (104) comprising a heated feed screw (105; paragraph 0022, extruder 104 may be configured to have a temperature profile) and a die (106), wherein the heated feed screw is powered by a motor (implicit), wherein the extruder is configured to accept material from the one or more material sources at a first end of the extruder (104A), and wherein the heated feed screw is configured to feed the material from the first end of the extruder to a second end of the extruder (104B);
a cooling bath configured to cool extrudate exiting the extruder (water baths 110, 114; paragraph 0031); and
a cutter wheel (120 in Figure 6; paragraph 0053),
supplying a resin from one of the one or more material sources to the heated feed screw (paragraph 0021, material may be transferred from the hopper 102 to an extruder 104);
heating the resin using the heated feed screw while feeding the resin to the die (paragraph 0022, the extruder 104 may be configured such that the temperature within the extruder is lower at the end 104A…than it is at the end 104B of the extruder 104 that provides the molten material 108B to the die 106),
extruding the resin through the die without the use of compressed air to produce an extrudate (paragraph 0027, The die 106 may receive the molten PHA material 108B from the extruder 104 and form the molten PHA material 108B into a tube; paragraph 0030, Compressed air 185 may be forced into the center portion of the extruded material (i.e., use of compressed air is not required)), wherein the die is configured to produce a cylindrical extrudate (paragraph 0027),
cooling the extrudate in the cooling bath (paragraphs 0031-0035), and
cutting the cooled extrudate at regular intervals with the cutter wheel to produce drinking straws (paragraph 0053, The cutter 120 may be configured to cut the material 108H at regular intervals to produce straws 206 having a desired straw length).
Laporte teaches all the elements of claim 11, but does not disclose the resin is selected from cellulose acetate, cellulose acetate propionate, cellulose acetate butyrate, or copolymers thereof; nor the cylindrical extrudate having a diameter of from about 0.22 inches to about 0.375 inches, a thickness of about 3.0 mil to about 5.5 mil, and a thickness relative standard deviation of less than or about 3%.
Sun teaches a biodegradable straw (paragraph 0012) formed from cellulose acetate resin (paragraphs 0016-0017, 0027). The biodegradable straw has a wall thickness of 0.02 to 7 mm (i.e., about 0.79 mils to 275.6 mils) and an outer diameter of 2 to 50 mm (i.e., about 0.079 to 1.97 inches) (which overlaps or encompasses the claimed ranges) (paragraph 0062). Further, Sun discloses said biodegradable straw can be obtained by extrusion (paragraphs 0059-0061). Hence, the use of cellulose acetate resin for the extrusion of straws having the dimension as claimed is known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the cellulose acetate resin disclosed by Sun for the resin of Laporte and the results of the substitution would have been predictable to one skilled in the art. One would have been motivated to use cellulose acetate resin for a more environmentally friendly biodegradable straw (paragraphs 0007, 0012 of Sun).
While Laporte, as modified by Sun, is silent as to the thickness relative standard deviation of less than or about 3%, it is noted that the teaches of Sun encompass straws having the same outer diameter and thickness as the instantly claimed. Additionally, it is noted Laporte, as modified by Sun, is formed from a cellulose acetate resin via extrusion (paragraph 0021 of Laporte; paragraphs 0059-0061 of Sun). As such, the straw disclosed by Laporte/Sun is substantially identical to the straw claimed and disclosed by Applicant in terms of the material from which it is made, the physical dimensions of the straw, and the method by which it is made. Therefore, in the absence of objective evidence to the contrary, there is a reasonable expectation the straw taught by Laporte/Sun would have intrinsically exhibited the claimed thickness standard deviation. see MPEP 2112V. Additionally, the Examiner notes that Applicant's specification does not specifically describe how the claimed standard deviation is arrived at.
Regarding claim 12, Laporte, as modified by Sun, further discloses the heated feed screw comprises a plurality of heating zones configured to heat the resin from the first end of the extruder to the second end of the extruder (paragraphs 0022-0023 of Laporte; paragraph 0061 of Sun).
Regarding claim 13, Laporte, as modified by Sun, teaches all the elements of claim 12, but does not disclose the heated feed screw comprises five heating zones having temperatures of about 410/420/440/440/440 °F. However, Sun discloses the use of an extruder with six heating zones (paragraphs 0061, 0071, 0075, 0079 of Sun). Further, Laporte discloses the extruder is configured to have a temperature profile in which the temperature at the first end is lower than the temperature at the second end (paragraphs 0022-0023 of Laporte). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the invention of Laporte/Sun and provided the heated feed screw with heating zones in order to gradually and more efficiently increase the temperature of the resin towards the second end of the extruder. While Laporte, as modified by Sun, does not disclose the specific temperatures of the heat zones as claimed, Sun discloses heating zones with temperatures of 130/150/165/180/190/195℃ (paragraphs 0061, 0071, 0075, 0079 of Sun) and Laporte discloses the temperature profile of the extruder may range from about 290° F at the first end the extruder to about 390° F at the second end of the extruder (paragraph 0023 of Laporte).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. One would have been motivated to optimize the temperatures of the heating zones based on the resin being extruded.
Regarding claim 14, Laporte, as modified by Sun, teaches all the elements of claim 11, disclose the heated feed screw is a low-work screw configured to minimize an amount of shear applied to the material as it is fed to the die (paragraph 0025 of Laporte, Such a low-shear, low-volume, non-mixing screw is desirable to prevent overworking the material in the extruder 104).
Regarding claim 15, Laporte, as modified by Sun, further discloses the cooling bath has a temperature of about 130 °F or higher (paragraph 0034 of Laporte).
Regarding claim 17, Laporte, as modified by Sun, further discloses the one or more material sources further comprises a source for a material configured to change a color of the drinking straws (paragraph 0020 of Laporte, hopper 102 may also receive color additives for changing the color of the raw materials).
Regarding claim 18, Laporte, as modified by Sun, teaches all the elements of claim 11, but does not disclose the drinking straws have a thickness standard deviation of between about 0.19 mil to about 0.32 mil. However, it is noted that the teaches of Sun encompass straws having the same outer diameter and thickness as the instantly claimed. Additionally, it is noted Laporte, as modified by Sun, is formed from a cellulose acetate resin via extrusion (paragraph 0021 of Laporte; paragraphs 0059-0061 of Sun). As such, the straw disclosed by Laporte/Sun is substantially identical to the straw claimed and disclosed by Applicant in terms of the material from which it is made, the physical dimensions of the straw, and the method by which it is made. Therefore, in the absence of objective evidence to the contrary, there is a reasonable expectation the straw taught by Laporte/Sun would have intrinsically exhibited the claimed thickness standard deviation. see MPEP 2112V. Additionally, the Examiner notes that Applicant's specification does not specifically describe how the claimed standard deviation is arrived at.
Regarding claim 19, Laporte, as modified by Sun, teaches all the elements of claim 11 and further discloses the die comprises a gap corresponding to the drinking straw (Figure 3; paragraphs 0028-0029 of Laporte), but does not disclose a ratio of the straw thickness to the gap is from about 0.1 to about 0.125. However, Laporte discloses setting the size of the gap (clearance C in Figure 3) in order to produce a straw of a specific diameter and thickness (paragraph 0029). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. One would have been motivated to optimize the ratio of the straw diameter and thickness to the gap of the die in order to produce a straw having a specific diameter and/or thickness.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laporte, in view of Sun and Morii JP2010194790A, translation as provided).
Regarding claim 16, Laporte, as modified by Sun, teaches all the elements of claim 11, but does not disclose a residence time of the resin in the extruder is from about 1 minute to about 5 minutes.
Morii teaches a method of extruding a resin using an extruder (paragraph 0146), where the residence time of the resin within the extruder is short, preferably withing 5 minutes, more preferably within 3 minute, and more preferably within 2 minutes. Further, Morii discloses the residence time depends on the type of reactor and the extrusion conditions, but can be shortened by adjusting the material supply amount, L/D ratio, screw rotation speed, etc. (paragraph 0146). Absent a showing of criticality, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have modified the invention of Laporte/Sun and decreased the residence time of the material withing the extruder, in the manner disclosed by Morii (i.e., adjusting extrusion conditions). One would have been motivated to shorten the residence time within the extruder to increase throughput therein. Further, as Morii also discloses the use of cellulose acetate (paragraphs 0111, 0247), one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in shortening the residence time within the extruder.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Greenberg (US 2021/0345803 A1) discloses an extrusion method of making a biodegradable straw.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 4/16/2026
Prosecution Insights