DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group III, claims 5-8 in the reply filed on 3/20/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 3/20/26.
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.
Claims 5-8 are 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.
As to claim 5, the phrase “wherein said filler derives from unselected mixture of waste products” renders this claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what is meant by unselected mixture of waste products. The metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear within the specification and therefore it is unclear what is meant by an unselected mixture. For purposes of examination this claim is be treated as being met if a filler is derived from a waste product of a citrus fruit.
Claims 6-8 are rejected as being dependent from claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Xu (CN 108404095A which has been machine translated), wherein claim 8 is evidenced by Medical college and research center.
Xu discloses a traditional Chinese medicine patch (abs). The patch is made from medicine components and polymer materials, the drug layer comprises orange peel (citrus waste product) and PHB in a solution (paragraphs 39 and 40).
As to claims 6 and 7, the polymer material used within the composition is PBH (paragraph 40).
As to claim 8, the composition further contains other materials such as Asafoetida which will read on mineral filler as its chemical composition contains minerals as evidenced by Medical college and research center.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Steinke et al (US Publication 20110178196) as evidenced by ISOLATION OF CELLULOSE DERIVED FROM ORANGE PEEL AND ITS APPLICATION IN BIODEGRADABLE FILMS.
Steinke discloses a biodegradable polymer mixture comprising PHB resin with organic fillers such as cellulose (paragraph 56). It should be noted that cellulose is derived from orange peels which are a citrus waste product as evidenced by ISOLATION OF CELLULOSE DERIVED FROM ORANGE PEEL AND ITS APPLICATION IN BIODEGRADABLE FILMS.
As to claims 6 and 7, the polymer material used within the composition is PBH (paragraph 56).
As to claim 8, the composition further discloses mineral fillers such as dolomite (paragraph 56).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5734. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8am till 4:30 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 Ruthkosky can be reached at 5712721291. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M POLLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights