DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-6, 14 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 7-13 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
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 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.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-6, 14) in the reply filed on 01/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 7-13 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 01/19/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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.
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(s) 1-6, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• DOU ET AL (US 2011/0244185).
in view of KRISHNASWAMY ET AL (US 2015/0132512),
and in view of KRISHNASWAMY ET AL (US 2015/0147929) and/or KRISHNASWAMY ET AL (US 2013/0065046).
DOU ET AL ‘185 discloses polylactic acid (PLA)-based film compositions with reduced noise levels, wherein the reduced noise PLA-based film composition comprises:
• 90-60 wt% PLA;
• 10-40 wt% of one or more modifying polymer(s) A with a Tg of 0 °C or less (e.g., polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) copolymers such as: polyhydroxybutyrate-valerate; PH(R)A with R=C2-C10; etc.; or mixtures thereof);
• optionally 1-10 wt% of elastomer to further absorb or dampen noise energy;
wherein biaxially oriented films made from the PLA-based film composition can exhibit noise level reductions of 5 dB or more (compared to unmodified biaxially oriented PLA films) (e.g., 10 dB or more, etc.) -- for example 85 dB or less (e.g., 82 dB or less). The PLA-based films have a typical thickness of 5-250 microns (preferably 8-50 microns or 10-30 microns, for packaging applications), and can exhibit: (i) a thickness variation in the transverse direction (TD) of the film of less than 10%; and/or (ii) a machine direction (MD) and TD shrinkage of 10% or less (preferably 5% or less) after heating to 120 °C for 15 minutes; and/or (iii) a tensile strength of preferably 68.9 MPa or more. The reference further discloses that the higher stiffness of PLA films contributed to increased higher noise levels, and that reductions in stiffness and increased flexibility provided by the inclusion of more flexible, low Tg polymers (e.g., PHA, elastomers, etc.) in PLA-based compositions helps to dampen noise generated by “noisy” PLA resins. (entire document, e.g., paragraph 0006, 0016-0020, 0026-0045, 0051-0054, 0056-0060, 0064-0071, etc. ; Table 2-2, 4-2, etc.)
KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘512 discloses that it is well known in the art to incorporate one or more low Tg (e.g., -5 °C to -50 °C) polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) copolymers comprising: (i) 3-hydroxybutyrate (3HB) units (corresponding to the recited “Formula 1” in claim 5); and (ii) about 25-85 wt% comonomer (e.g., 4-hydroxybutyrate (4HB); 5-hydroxyvalerate (5HV); 3-hydroxyhexanoate (3HH); 3-hydroxyoctanoate (3HO); (corresponding to the recited “Formula 2” in claim 6)) units; in polylactic acid (PLA)-based blends to produce biodegradable and/or compostable bio-based products with good tear strength, puncture resistance, and toughness, combined with soft pliable properties, which can provide low noise levels when handled or manipulated, wherein the PLA-based blends typically comprises:
• 95-50 wt% PLA;
• 5-50 wt% low Tg PHA copolymer(s), wherein the low Tg PHA copolymer(s) can comprise:
• 5-90 wt% of a Type 1 PHB copolymer (e.g., PHB3HV with a 3HV (3-hydroxyvalerate) comonomer content of 3-22 wt%; PHB4HV with a 4HV (4-hydroxyvalerate) comonomer content of 3-15 wt%; etc.);
• 90-5 wt% of a Type 2 PHB copolymer with a typical Tg of -20 °C to -50 °C (e.g., PHB5HV with a 5HV comonomer content of 20-60 wt%; etc.);
(paragraph 0009-0011, 0014, 0018, 0024, 0026-0029, 0032-0033, 0040-0041, 0048, 0051-0052, 0063, 0068-0076, 0079, 0083, 0085, 0088, 0098, 0120-0121, etc.)
KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘929 discloses that it is well known in the art that 3-hydroxybutyrate (3HB) copolymers containing more than 25 wt% of 5-hydroxyvalerate (5HV) comonomer are amorphous, rubbery polymers with typical Tg values of -15 °C to -50 °C. (paragraph 0040, etc.)
KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘046 discloses that it is well known in the art that 3-hydroxybutyrate (3HB) copolymers containing 25-60 wt% of 5-hydroxyvalerate (5HV) comonomer are rubbery polymers which are fully or mostly amorphous, with typical Tg values of -15 °C to -40 °C as components in PLA-based blend compositions which improve various physical properties (e.g., softness, flexibility, etc.). (paragraph 0008-0009, 0013, 0032, 0039, 0042, etc.)
Regarding claims 1, 4-6, 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize minor amounts (e.g., 10-90 wt% of a total modifying PHA content of 10 wt% or less) of known low Tg Type 2 PHB copolymers (e.g., containing 20-60 wt% 5HV, as suggested by KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘512) which are fully or mostly amorphous (as evidenced by KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘929 and/or KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘046) as one of the modifying polymer(s) A in the reduced-noise PLA-based films in DOU ET AL ‘185 in order to produce highly flexible or pliable (as represented by a low loop stiffness) environmentally friendly (e.g., biodegradable and/or compostable) bio-based films with excellent performance properties (e.g., tensile strength, tear resistance, shrinkage resistance, puncture resistance, etc.) for specific packaging applications.
Further regarding claim 1, since:
(i) DOU ET AL ‘185 discloses polylactic acid (PLA)-based film compositions with reduced noise levels containing 10-40 wt% of one or more modifying polymer(s) A with a Tg of 0 °C or less (e.g., polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) copolymers such as: polyhydroxybutyrate-valerate; PH(R)A with R=C2-C10; etc.; or mixtures thereof);
(ii) KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘512 discloses that low Tg PHA copolymer(s) useful in PLA-based film compositions can comprise a mixture of: (1) 5-90 wt% of a Type 1 PHB copolymer; and (2) 90-5 wt% of a Type 2 PHB copolymer (corresponding to the recited “amorphous PHA”) with a typical Tg of -20 °C to -50 °C (e.g., PHB5HV with a 5HV comonomer content of 20-60 wt%; etc.);
(iii) KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘929 and/or KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘046 provides evidence that 3-hydroxybutyrate (3HB) copolymers containing more than 25 wt% of 5-hydroxyvalerate (5HV) comonomer are low Tg rubbery polymers which are fully or mostly amorphous;
reduced-noise PLA-based films in accordance with DOU ET AL ‘185 utilizing a mixture of modifying polymer(s) A (e.g., a PHA blend comprising a mixture of Type 1 and Type 2 PHB copolymer(s), as suggested in KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘512) can contain an Type 2 PHB copolymer (corresponding to the recited “amorphous PHA”, as evidenced by KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘929 and/or KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘046) content between 3-9 wt%. For example, utilizing a PHB blend containing 50 wt% Type 1 PHB copolymer and 50 wt% Type 2 PHB copolymer (as suggested in KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘512) as an 10-20 wt% mixed modifying polymer(s) A in the reduced-noise PLA-based films in accordance with DOU ET AL ‘185 results in a film composition containing 5-10 wt% Type 2 (corresponding to the recited “amorphous PHA”). Similarly, utilizing a PHB blend containing 80 wt% Type 1 PHB copolymer and 20 wt% Type 2 PHB copolymer (as suggested in KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘512) as an 10-40 wt% mixed modifying polymer(s) A in the reduced-noise PLA-based films in accordance with DOU ET AL ‘185 results in a film composition containing 2-8 wt% Type 2 (corresponding to the recited “amorphous PHA”).
Further regarding claims 1-2, since both DOU ET AL ‘185 and KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘512 indicate that the incorporation of low Tg modifying polymers which increase film “softness” and “flexibility” generally provides a reduction in noise levels (compared to unmodified PLA films); the Examiner has reason to believe that PLA / PHA films in accordance with DOU ET AL ‘185 formulated for high flexibility would exhibit loop stiffness values and noise levels (and therefore LSN values) which at least partially overlap the LSN range recited in claim 1 and loop stiffness range recited in claim 2, therefore the Examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594. Additionally and/or alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the amount and type of low Tg PHA copolymer in the PLA-based films of DOU ET AL ‘185 to produce highly flexible (as represented by a low or very low loop stiffness of 0.23 gf or less) PLA-based packaging film materials with low noise levels (e.g., 85 dB or less) (corresponding to the recited “LSN“ of “20 or less”) for specific packaging applications.
Further regarding claim 3, since: (i) both DOU ET AL ‘185 and KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘512 indicate that the incorporation of low Tg modifying polymers in PLA-based compositions will generally increase film “softness” and “flexibility” and therefore reduces loop stiffness; and (ii) the films of DOU ET AL ‘185 preferably exhibit tensile strength values of 68.9 MPa or more (about 7 kgf/mm2 or more); the Examiner has reason to believe that PLA / PHA films in accordance with DOU ET AL ‘185 formulated for high flexibility (and therefore low or very low loop stiffness -- e.g., 0.1 gf or less) are capable of exhibiting Molding index (FI) values which at least partially overlap the Molding index (FI) range recited in claim 3, therefore the Examiner has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594. Additionally and/or alternatively, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected: (i) the amount and type of PLA resin; (ii) the amount and type of low Tg PHA copolymer; and (iii) the amount and type of additional polymers (e.g., elastomers as suggested in DOU ET AL ‘185; etc.); in the PLA-based films of DOU ET AL ‘185 to produce highly flexible (as represented by a low or very low loop stiffness -- e.g., 0.10 gf or less) PLA-based packaging film materials which also exhibit excellent tensile strength (e.g., 7 kgf/mm2 or more) (corresponding to the recited “Molding index (FI)“ of “65 or more”) for specific packaging applications.
The Examiner cautions that if Applicant chooses to argue that the physical properties recited in claims 1-4 cannot be obtained by one of ordinary skill in the art using known improvement and/or modification techniques or methods (e.g., as mentioned above) using routine experimentation, this may raise significant issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with respect to scope of enablement, and that Applicant’s arguments and/or assertions may be used as admissions or supporting evidence with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) with respect to scope of enablement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues that DOU ET AL ‘185 and KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘512 “fail to teach or suggest the underlined technical features of amended claim 1.” Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Claim Amendments filed 06/25/2026.
(B) Applicant argues that “the use of amorphous PHA in the specific range of 3 to 10 wt%, together with the control of the LSN value to 20 or less, is not a mere selection of a PHA content, but rather constitutes a technical configuration for achieving a balanced combination of strength, flexibility, low-noise properties, thermal properties, and optical properties.” Applicant further argues that “the claimed range is not an arbitrary selection but rather a purposive selection
associated with an unexpected balance of properties.”
However, while the specification provides some evidence regarding criticality of the recited amount of amorphous PHA, any showings of unexpected results and/or criticality provided by the specification are not commensurate in scope with the present claims – for example, but not limited to:
-- the type of amorphous PHA;
-- the type and amount of PLA in the film as a whole; etc.
While Applicant is not required to provide evidence of unexpected results and/or criticality for every possible embodiment encompassed by the present claims, any showings of criticality and/or unexpected results provided by the specification or Applicant should be reasonably representative of the full scope of the claimed invention and/or provide sufficient evidence that can be reasonably extended by one of ordinary skill in the art over the scope of the present claims.
MPEP 716.02(d) Unexpected Results Commensurate in Scope With Claimed Invention [R-08.2012]
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at "elevated temperatures" using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100C). Appellant demonstrated unexpected results via comparative tests with the prior art ion exchange resin at 110C and 130C. The court affirmed the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 because the term "elevated temperatures" encompassed temperatures as low as 60C where the prior art ion exchange resin was known to perform well. The rejection of claim 8, directed to a temperature in excess of 100C, was reversed.). See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I. NONOBVIOUSNESS OF A GENUS OR CLAIMED RANGE MAY BE SUPPORTED BY DATA SHOWING UNEXPECTED RESULTS OF A SPECIES OR NARROWER RANGE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The nonobviousness of a broader claimed range can be supported by evidence based on unexpected results from testing a narrower range if one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine a trend in the exemplified data which would allow the artisan to reasonably extend the probative value thereof. In re Kollman, 595 F.2d 48, 201 USPQ 193 (CCPA 1979) (Claims directed to mixtures of an herbicide known as "FENAC" with a diphenyl ether herbicide in certain relative proportions were rejected as prima facie obvious. Applicant presented evidence alleging unexpected results testing three species of diphenyl ether herbicides over limited relative proportion ranges. The court held that the limited number of species exemplified did not provide an adequate basis for concluding that similar results would be obtained for the other diphenyl ether herbicides within the scope of the generic claims. Claims 6-8 recited a FENAC:diphenyl ether ratio of 1:1 to 4:1 for the three specific ethers tested. For two of the claimed ethers, unexpected results were demonstrated over a ratio of 16:1 to 2:1, and the effectiveness increased as the ratio approached the untested region of the claimed range. The court held these tests were commensurate in scope with the claims and supported the nonobviousness thereof. However, for a third ether, data was only provided over the range of 1:1 to 2:1 where the effectiveness decreased to the "expected level" as it approached the untested region. This evidence was not sufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection.); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972) (Evidence of nonobviousness consisted of comparing a single composition within the broad scope of the claims with the prior art. The court did not find the evidence sufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because there was "no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested composition.").
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
II. DEMONSTRATING CRITICALITY OF A CLAIMED RANGE
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
In the present instance, the inventive Examples 1-1 to 1-4 in the specification utilize a single amorphous PHA of unspecified composition and a single type of PLA resin in the film composition. Similarly, inventive 2-1 to 2-4 and 2-6 in the specification utilize a single amorphous PHA of unspecified composition and a single type of PLA resin in the film composition in the first layer composition and a relatively limited range of PLA blends in the second layer. Applicant has not provided objective evidence that the LSN and other physical properties relied upon by Applicant as evidence of criticality and/or unexpected results are wholly or effectively independent of: (i) the type of amorphous PHA used; and (ii) type and amount of PLA resin used.
(C) Applicant argues that DOU ET AL ‘185 fails to disclose or suggest the claimed invention because “D1 is primarily directed to a configuration in which the biodegradable polymer A is included in an amount of 10 to 40 wt%, preferably 20 to 30 wt%, based on a quiet layer or a core/base layer. D1 neither discloses nor suggests using amorphous PHA in the specific range of 3 to 10 wt% based on the total weight of the film, while controlling the LSN value to 20 or less, as well as the resulting balance of physical properties.” However, since: (i) DOU ET AL ‘185 discloses or suggests that two or more modifying polymers A can be utilized in the disclosed reduced-noise PLA-based films in accordance with DOU ET AL ‘185; and (ii) the present claims use the open language “comprises” with respect to the film composition as a whole; contrary to Applicant’s assertions, DOU ET AL ‘185 allows for film or layer compositions wherein a given individual modifying polymer A (e.g., polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) copolymers such as polyhydroxybutyrate-valerate or PH(R)A with R=C2-C10) are present in amounts which substantially overlap the recited range of 3-10 wt%.
(D) Applicant argues that KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘512 fails to disclose or suggest the claimed invention because “its practical examples merely evaluate mechanical properties of PLA/PHA blends comprising PHA mainly at a level of about 20 or 30 wt%.” However, the teachings of a reference are not limited to specific experimental examples, but encompass the reference as a whole.
MPEP 2123 Rejection Over Prior Art’s Broad Disclosure Instead of Preferred Embodiments [R-07.2022]
I. PATENTS ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN
"The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. "The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.").
See also MPEP § 2131.05 and § 2145, subsection X.D., which discuss prior art that teaches away from the claimed invention in the context of anticipation and obviousness, respectively.
II. NONPREFERRED AND ALTERNATIVE EMBODIMENTS CONSTITUTE PRIOR ART
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have "relatively acceptable dimensional stability" and "some degree of flexibility," but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since "Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art." Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In the present instance, KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘512 discloses or at least reasonably suggests the use of Type 2 PHB copolymers (corresponding to the recited “amorphous PHA”) in amounts which at least partially overlap the claimed range of 3-10 wt%. Applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected results and/or criticality commensurate in scope with the present claims.
(E) Applicant argues that KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘512 fails to disclose or suggest the claimed invention because “D2 merely discloses a process in which PLA and PHA are compounded, pelletized, extruded to prepare a film, and then cast on a roll. D2 does not disclose or suggest a biaxially oriented film obtained by melt-extruding a resin mixture comprising PLA and amorphous PHA, followed by biaxial stretching in the long
itudinal direction and the transverse direction.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, the reference discloses that the disclosed PLA / PLA blends are suitable for use in “art-known technique, such as, but not limited to, extrusion.... blow molding (e.g., blown film...” (KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘512, paragraph 0155). Since: (i) various known thermoplastic forming techniques commonly utilize some degree of drawing, stretching, and/or orientation (e.g., film blowing, blow molding, etc.); (ii) biaxial orientation is a well-established “art-known technique” for forming thermoplastic film articles; and (iii) the reference does not explicitly prohibit or discourage the disclosed PLA / PHA blends from being biaxially oriented or stretched; mere silence regarding biaxial orientation in KRISHNASWAMY ET AL ‘512 does not constitute a clear teaching away from the use of the disclosed PLA / PHA blends from being biaxially oriented. Applicant has not provided evidence of unexpected results and/or criticality commensurate in scope with the present claims.
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 Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
September 3, 2026
/Vivian Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights