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 .
Response to Amendment
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8-11, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by IN 201931027874 A to Samal (hereinafter Samal) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 14-15, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Verdum et al., “Revaluation of Catalan Low Quality Cork as Feedstock for the Additive 3D Printing Technology,” Cork Science and its Applications, Materials Research Proceedings, vol. 3, pp. 11-18 (2017). (hereinafter Verdum) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samal, as applied to claim 6, and in further view of Cordeiro et al., “The Organosolv Fractionation of Cork Components,” Holzforschung, vol. 56, pp. 135-142, (2002), (hereinafter Cordeiro) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejection of Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 14-15, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0065573 A1 to McEneany et al. (hereinafter McEneany) and in further view of US 2008/0262190 A1 to Koskimies et al. (hereinafter Koskimies) is/are withdrawn in light of the Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 4 and 16 recite the cork and potato periderm weight ratio of “2:1 to 3:1,” i.e. 37-75% cork, and 25-33% potato periderm. However, claims 1 and 6 recite the cork and potato periderm weight ratio of “4:6 to 6:4,” i.e. 40-60% cork, and 40-60% potato periderm. Claims 4 and 16 appear to use weight ratios outside the weight ratios listed in claims 1 and 6 and thus, fail to further limit.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 1, 6, and 12-15, are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The first closest prior art is IN 201931027874 A to Samal (hereinafter Samal). Samal teaches a polyester composition comprising mixing suberin and poly(lactic acid) in a ratio of 70:30, (See Example 1, page 5), wherein the suberin comprises a cork and is extracted from a plant cell wall performed at a temperature from 110-150 deg C with a solvent such as ethanol or methanol (page 4-5).
Samal does not teach the suberin extracted from cork and potato periderm in the claimed weight ratio.
The second closest prior art is Verdum et al., “Revaluation of Catalan Low Quality Cork as Feedstock for the Additive 3D Printing Technology,” Cork Science and its Applications, Materials Research Proceedings, vol. 3, pp. 11-18 (2017). (hereinafter Verdum). Verdum teaches 3D printing with polylactic acid and cork dust to form PLA-based filaments with 10-30% cork dust (page 12-13), wherein the cork dust contains 30-60% suberin (Table 1, page 13), and the 3D printing is done at a temp of 165 deg C (page 17). The above 10% cork dust in the PLA correlates to the PLA containing 3-6% suberin.
Verdum does not teach the suberin extracted from cork and potato periderm in the claimed weight ratio.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HA S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7395. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, Flex schedule 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/HA S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights