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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-26, in the reply filed on 07/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 27 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 07/09/2026.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation “(poly-(R)-3-hydroxyburytate-co-3-hydroxyundecanoate (PHBU)” in lines 1-2, which is indefinite because “(R)-3-hydroxyburytate” is not a known repeat unit for a copolymer, but “(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate” is a known repeat unit for a copolymer. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “(poly-(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyundecanoate (PHBU)”.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 9-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levine et al. (Levine et al., “Influence of Cross-Linking on the Physical Properties and Cytotoxicity of Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering”, ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering, 2015, Vol. 1, No. 7, p. 567-576).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 9-12, and 14-16, Levine teaches an unsaturated copolyester that is poly[(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-(R)-3-hydroxy-10-undecanoate] (PHBU), that has the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
372
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and that is cross-linked via thiol-ene click chemistry (p. 567), wherein the thiol-ene click chemistry is a radical mediated coupling reaction between alkene and thiol functional groups, resulting in a covalent thioether linkage (p. 569), wherein the PHBU copolymer is cross-linked using pentaerythritol tetrakis (3-mercaptopropionate) (PETMP) and radical initiator 2,2-dimethoxypheylacetophenone (DMPA) (p. 569), wherein the reaction scheme of the thiol-ene cross-linking of PHBU is
PNG
media_image2.png
304
1158
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(p. 571), which reads on a composition comprising a first copolymer comprising a first repeat unit and a second repeat unit as defined by Structure (I) wherein
PNG
media_image3.png
52
56
media_image3.png
Greyscale
is a covalent bond, U1 is a molar fraction of the first repeat unit, (1-U1) is a molar fraction of the second repeat unit, n = 0, m = 4, 0 < U1 ≤ 1.0, R is a linking group covalently linking the first copolymer to a second copolymer by the covalent bond, and R comprises carbon, hydrogen, and sulfur as claimed, wherein n is between 0 and 9, inclusively as claimed, wherein m is between 0 and 9, inclusively as claimed, wherein the second copolymer comprises Structure (I) as claimed, wherein the second copolymer comprises Structure (II) wherein U2 is a molar fraction of a third repeat unit, (1-U2) is a molar fraction of a fourth repeat unit, v = 0, z = 5, and 0 < U2 ≤ 1 as claimed, wherein v is between 0 and 9, inclusively as claimed, wherein z is between 0 and 9, inclusively as claimed, wherein the second copolymer chain is derived from (poly-(R)-3-hydroxybutryate-co-3-hydroxyundecanoate (PHBU) as claimed, wherein the first copolymer and the second copolymer are at a mass ratio between 1:10 and 10:1 (first copolymer:second copolymer), inclusively as claimed, wherein the ratio is between 1:3 and 3:1, inclusively as claimed.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Levine teaches that the ratio of 3-hydroxyundecenoyl to 3-hydroxybutyryl repeating units in the polymer that is PHBU is 5:95, 10:90, 20:80, or 25:75 (p. 570), which reads on wherein U1 = 0.05, 0.10, 0.20, or 0.25 as claimed, wherein U2 = 0.05, 0.10, 0.20, or 0.25 as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, the Office recognizes that all the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Levine, namely that the composition is elastomeric. However, Levine teaches all the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the composition of claim 1 as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that in some embodiments of the present disclosure, the composition may be elastomeric [0008], and that an aspect of the present disclosure is a method that includes reacting a mixture comprising a first copolymer, a second copolymer, and a crosslinker to form a biodegradable elastomeric resin [0010]. Also, Levine teaches that the cross-linked PHBU has an elongation at break of 120.3 ± 16.5 and a tensile strength of 11.2 ± 0.2 MPa (p. 573). Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the composition of Levine. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 18, the Office recognizes that all the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Levine, namely that the composition of claim 1 further comprises a glass transition temperature (Tg) between -50 °C and 10 °C. However, Levine teaches all the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the composition of claim 1 as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that in some embodiments of the present disclosure, the composition may further include a glass transition temperature (Tg) between -50 °C and 10 °C [0008], and that in some embodiments of the present disclosure, a polymer network, i.e., a resin, such as a thermoset, as described above, may be characterized by a glass transition temperature between -100 °C and 0 °C, or between -50 °C and -15 °C [10079]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the composition of Levine. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 19, the Office recognizes that all the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Levine, namely that the composition of claim 1 further comprising a melting temperature (Tm) between 40 °C and 180 °C. However, Levine teaches all the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the composition of claim 1 as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that in some embodiments of the present disclosure, the composition may further include a melting temperature (Tm) between 40 °C and 180 °C [0008], and that in some embodiments of the present disclosure, a polymer and/or network, e.g., a thermoset, as described above, may be characterized by a melting point between 0 °C and 160 °C, or between 40 °C and 60 °C [0079]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the composition of Levine. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 20, Levine teaches that the cross-linked PHBU has a Young’s modulus of 258.3 ± 67.9 or 205.5 ± 58.7 MPa (p. 573), which reads on the composition of claim 1, further comprising a Young’s modulus (E) between 1 MPa and 1000 MPa as claimed.
Regarding claim 21, Levine teaches that the cross-linked PHBU has an elongation at break of 120.3 ± 16.5 or 95.2 ± 8.3 % (p. 573), which reads on the composition of claim 1 further comprising a ductility (εB) between 1 % and 500% as claimed.
Regarding claim 22, Levine teaches that the cross-linked PHBU has a tensile strength of 11.2 ± 0.2 MPa (p. 573), which reads on the composition of claim 1 further comprising a strength at break (σB) between 0.1 MPa and 20 MPa as claimed.
Regarding claim 23, the Office recognizes that all the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Levine, namely that the composition of claim 1 further comprising an onset of degradation temperature (Td,5) between 260 °C and 300 °C. However, Levine teaches all the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the composition of claim 1 as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that in some embodiments of the present disclosure, the composition may further include an onset of degradation temperature (Td,5) between 260 °C and 300 °C [0008]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the composition of Levine. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Regarding claim 24, Levine teaches that PHAs have inherent biodegradability (p. 571), that the cross-linked samples of polymers exhibited biodegradation (p. 573), and that the PHBU is a PHA (p. 567), which reads on wherein the composition is biodegradable as claimed.
Regarding claim 25, the Office recognizes that all the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Levine, namely that the composition of claim 24 further comprises a freshwater percent biodegradation at 90 days between 21 % and 40 %. However, Levine teaches all the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the composition of claim 1 as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that in some embodiments of the present disclosure, the composition may further include a freshwater percent biodegradation at 90 days between 21% and 40 % [0009]. Also, Levine teaches that PHAs have inherent biodegradability (p. 571), that the cross-linked samples of polymers exhibited biodegradation (p. 573), and that the PHBU is a PHA (p. 567). Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the composition of Levine. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
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.
Claims 2 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine et al. (Levine et al., “Influence of Cross-Linking on the Physical Properties and Cytotoxicity of Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering”, ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering, 2015, Vol. 1, No. 7, p. 567-576) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Levine teaches the composition of claim 1 explained above. Levine teaches that the polymer PHBU has a number-average molecular weight (Mn) of 71.7 ± 4.0, 63.7 ± 2.1, 75.8 ± 2.8, 67.2 ± 3.4, or 93.2 ± 2.0 kDa when the ratio of 3-hydroxyundecenoyl to 3-hydroxybutyrl repeating units in the polymer is 5:95, 10:90, 20:80, 25:75, or 50:50, respectively (p. 570), which reads on wherein the first copolymer has a molecular weight (Mn) of 71.7 ± 4.0, 63.7 ± 2.1, 75.8 ± 2.8, 67.2 ± 3.4, or 93.2 ± 2.0 kDa. Levine teaches that the copolymer PHBU that is poly[(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-(R)-3-hydroxy-10-undecenoate] is produced using E. coli LSBJ (p. 568), that for polymer production, 1 mL of a cell culture of E. coli LSBJ is used to inoculate 500 mL of baffled flasks containing 100 mL of LB medium, 50 mg/L kanamycin, 4 g/L Brij-35, and 2 g/L fatty acids, and that the cultures are grown at 30 °C for 48 h in an orbital shaker set at 250 rpm (p. 568), which suggests modifying the number-average molecular weight (Mn) of Levine’s polymer PHBU that is poly[(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-(R)-3-hydroxy-10-undecenoate].
Levine does not teach that the first copolymer has a molecular weight (Mn) between 100 kDa and 1000 kDa. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the number-average molecular weight (Mn) of Levine’s polymer PHBU that is poly[(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-(R)-3-hydroxy-10-undecenoate] to be slightly larger than 100 kDa. The proposed modification would read on wherein the first copolymer has a molecular weight (Mn) between 100 kDa and 1000 kDa as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Levine teaches that the polymer PHBU has a number-average molecular weight (Mn) of 71.7 ± 4.0, 63.7 ± 2.1, 75.8 ± 2.8, 67.2 ± 3.4, or 93.2 ± 2.0 kDa when the ratio of 3-hydroxyundecenoyl to 3-hydroxybutyrl repeating units in the polymer is 5:95, 10:90, 20:80, 25:75, or 50:50, respectively (p. 570), that the copolymer PHBU that is poly[(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-(R)-3-hydroxy-10-undecenoate] is produced using E. coli LSBJ (p. 568), that for polymer production, 1 mL of a cell culture of E. coli LSBJ is used to inoculate 500 mL of baffled flasks containing 100 mL of LB medium, 50 mg/L kanamycin, 4 g/L Brij-35, and 2 g/L fatty acids, and that the cultures are grown at 30 °C for 48 h in an orbital shaker set at 250 rpm (p. 568), which means that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the number-average molecular weight (Mn) of Levine’s polymer PHBU that is poly[(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-(R)-3-hydroxy-10-undecenoate] by modifying the ratio of 3-hydroxyundecenoyl to 3-hydroxybutyrl repeating units in the polymer, and/or modifying Levine’s cell culture of E. coli LSBJ. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 26, Levine teaches the composition of claim 1. Levine teaches that PHA scaffolds are fabricated using a combined method of salt-leaching and thermally induced phase separation (p. 569), that porous PHBU scaffolds are produced by thermally induced phase separation of PHBU (p. 570), and that the PBBU scaffold is cross-linked (p. 569), which means that the composition comprises phase separation as determined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Levine teaches an unsaturated copolyester that is poly[(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-(R)-3-hydroxy-10-undecanoate] (PHBU), that has the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
372
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and that is cross-linked via thiol-ene click chemistry (p. 567), wherein the thiol-ene click chemistry is a radical mediated coupling reaction between alkene and thiol functional groups, resulting in a covalent thioether linkage (p. 569), wherein the PHBU copolymer is cross-linked using pentaerythritol tetrakis (3-mercaptopropionate) (PETMP) and radical initiation 2,2-dimethoxypheylacetophenone (DMPA) (p. 569), wherein the reaction scheme of the thiol-ene cross-linking of PHBU is
PNG
media_image2.png
304
1158
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(p. 571), wherein the PETMP is added to the PHBU in a solution (p. 569), which means that it is not necessary for Levine’s PHBU to be a PHBU scaffold in order for it to be cross-linked, which suggests the composition of claim 24 further comprising the absence of phase separation as determined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) as claimed.
Levine does not teach that the composition of claim 24 further comprises the absence of phase separation as determined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare Levine’s cross-linked PHBU by cross-linking Levine’s PHBU with Levine’s PETMP and DMPA in a solution, wherein the PHBU is present in the solution as polymer chains in a solution and not as a scaffold. The proposed modification would read on the composition of claim 24 further comprising the absence of phase separation as determined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Levine teaches that PHA scaffolds are fabricated using a combined method of salt-leaching and thermally induced phase separation (p. 569), that porous PHBU scaffolds are produced by thermally induced phase separation of PHBU (p. 570), that the PBBU scaffold is cross-linked (p. 569), that the unsaturated copolyester is poly[(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-(R)-3-hydroxy-10-undecanoate] (PHBU), that it has the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
372
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, and that it is cross-linked via thiol-ene click chemistry (p. 567), wherein the thiol-ene click chemistry is a radical mediated coupling reaction between alkene and thiol functional groups, resulting in a covalent thioether linkage (p. 569), wherein the PHBU copolymer is cross-linked using pentaerythritol tetrakis (3-mercaptopropionate) (PETMP) and radical initiation 2,2-dimethoxypheylacetophenone (DMPA) (p. 569), wherein the reaction scheme of the thiol-ene cross-linking of PHBU is
PNG
media_image2.png
304
1158
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(p. 571), wherein the PETMP is added to the PHBU in a solution (p. 569), which means that it is not necessary for Levine’s PHBU to be a PHBU scaffold in order for it to be cross-linked. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levine et al. (Levine et al., “Influence of Cross-Linking on the Physical Properties and Cytotoxicity of Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering”, ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering, 2015, Vol. 1, No. 7, p. 567-576) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mangeon et al. (Mangeon et al., “Renewable Semi-Interpenetrating Polymer Networks Based on Vegetable Oils Used as Plasticized Systems of Poly(3-hydroxyalkanoate)s”, ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 2018, Vol. 6, No. 4, p. 5034-5042).
Regarding claim 7, Levine teaches the composition of claim 1 as explained above.
Levine does not teach wherein R comprises at least one of
PNG
media_image4.png
38
130
media_image4.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image5.png
38
284
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image6.png
82
390
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
112
290
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image8.png
156
304
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, or
PNG
media_image9.png
170
370
media_image9.png
Greyscale
. However, Mangeon teaches trimethylolpropane tris(3-mercaptopropionate) that has the formula
PNG
media_image10.png
232
530
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(p. 5034, 5035) that is reacted with sunflower oil that has the formula
PNG
media_image11.png
140
382
media_image11.png
Greyscale
in the presence of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) that has the formula
PNG
media_image12.png
96
296
media_image12.png
Greyscale
to synthesize a semi-interpenetrating polymer network (p. 5034, 5035) comprising
PNG
media_image13.png
262
456
media_image13.png
Greyscale
(p. 5035), wherein the sunflower oil and the trimethylolpropane tris(3-mercaptopropionate) are cross-linked using a thiol-ene reaction between the unsaturated groups of the sunflower oil and the thiol groups of the trimethylolpropane tris(3-mercaptopropionate) (p. 5034, 5036). Levin and Mangeon are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of a composition formed by a thiol-ene reaction between unsaturated groups of a compound and thiol groups of a compound, wherein the composition comprises a polyhydroxyalkanoate. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Mangeon’s trimethylolpropane tris(3-mercaptopropionate) that has the formula
PNG
media_image10.png
232
530
media_image10.png
Greyscale
to substitute for Levine’s pentaerythritol tetrakis (3-mercaptopropionate) that is used to cross-link Levine’s PHBU copolymer via thiol-ene click chemistry, such that for at least one molecule of Mangeon’s trimethylolpropane tris(3-mercaptopropionate), it reacts with only two molecules of Levine’s PHBU copolymer. The proposed modification would read on wherein R comprises
PNG
media_image9.png
170
370
media_image9.png
Greyscale
as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for the cross-linked structure, cross-linked properties, and/or mechanical properties of Levine’s PHBU that is cross-linked via thiol-ene click chemistry because Mangeon teaches that the trimethylolpropane tris(3-mercaptopropionate) that has the formula
PNG
media_image10.png
232
530
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(p. 5034, 5035) is beneficial for participating in a thiol-ene reaction between unsaturated groups of a compound that is sunflower oil and thiol groups of the trimethylolpropane tris(3-mercaptopropionate), wherein cross-linking occurs (p. 5034, 5036 om the presence of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) (p. 5034, 5035), and because Levine teaches that the pentaerythritol tetrakis (3-mercaptopropionate) is used to cross-link an unsaturated copolyester that is poly[(R)-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-(R)-3-hydroxy-10-undecanoate] via thiol-ene click chemistry (p. 567).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, Levine et al. (Levine et al., “Influence of Cross-Linking on the Physical Properties and Cytotoxicity of Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering”, ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering, 2015, Vol. 1, No. 7, p. 567-576) teaches the composition of claim 1 as explained above.
Levine does not teach that the first copolymer is derived from poly-R-(3-hydroxydecanoate-co-3-hydroxyundecanoate) (PHDU). The prior art of record do not teach or suggest combining a first copolymer that is derived from poly-R-(3-hydroxydecanoate-co-3-hydroxyundecanoate) (PHDU) with the composition of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Levine et al. (Levine et al., “Influence of Cross-Linking on the Physical Properties and Cytotoxicity of Polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering”, ACS Biomaterials Science & Engineering, 2015, Vol. 1, No. 7, p. 567-576) teaches the composition of claim 1 as explained above.
Levine does not teach that R is
PNG
media_image14.png
158
304
media_image14.png
Greyscale
. The prior art of record do not teach or suggest R being as claimed in the composition of claim 1.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID KARST whose telephone number is (571)270-7732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/DAVID T KARST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights