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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim (KR101149833) in view of Xu et al. (CN112048162).
Regarding claims 1-3, Shim teaches a method for producing a marine material and a marine material (including a twisted yarn) comprising forming a constituent element wherein the constituent element comprises a resin consisting essentially of polylactic acid and polybutylene adipate terephthalate with the weight ratio of polylactic acid to polybutylene adipate terephthalate in the resin forming the constituent element being in the claimed range as 3-80% PLA and 70-20% PBAT [0011-0037]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, Shim teaches the range of ratio of PLA:PBAT of 3:8 to 7:2 teaching to vary the amount of PLA:PBAT in order to balance processability, thermal stability, strength, stiffness and physical properties and therefore teaches the ratio as a results effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ratio range of Shim and arrive at the claimed narrower range through routine experimentation in order to balance processability, thermal stability, strength, stiffness and physical properties.
Lastly, Examples 3 and 4, which Applicant point to for evidence of unexpected results, is not found to be convincing. While Examples 3 and 4 exemplify the endpoints of the claimed range, the data provided is not commensurate in scope with the claims as it is unclear what happens just outside of the claimed range and further is not clear what happens in between the endpoints.
Shim is silent regarding the claimed end capping agent. However, Xu et al. teach using an end-capping agent (terminator) in a polyester composition comprising PLA and PBAT in order to seal the polymer, preventing the polymer from being over-chained, causing the molecular weight distribution to become wider or cross-linked, thereby improving the uniformity of the polymer molecular chain and making the material performance more stable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the end capping agent of Xu et al. in Shim in order to seal the polymer, preventing the polymer from being over-chained, causing the molecular weight distribution to become wider or cross-linked, thereby improving the uniformity of the polymer molecular chain and making the material performance more stable and arrive at the claimed invention.
Prior Art Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2019/0359818 teaches the claimed ratio of PLA: PBAT in a marine material
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues unexpected results arguing Examples 3 and 4 of the present specification. Shim teaches a ratio of PLA:PBAT in the claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, Shim teaches the range of ratio of PLA:PBAT of 3:8 to 7:2 teaching to vary the amount of PLA:PBAT in order to balance processability, thermal stability, strength, stiffness and physical properties and therefore teaches the ratio as a results effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ratio range of Shim and arrive at the claimed narrower range through routine experimentation in order to balance processability, thermal stability, strength, stiffness and physical properties.
Lastly, Examples 3 and 4, which Applicant point to for evidence of unexpected results, is not found to be convincing. While Examples 3 and 4 exemplify the endpoints of the claimed range, the data provided is not commensurate in scope with the claims as it is unclear what happens just outside of the claimed range and further is not clear what happens in between the endpoints.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights