DETAILED ACTION
Pending Claims
Claims 1-8 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 .
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 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, 2, and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assumma et al. (US 2024/0218576 A1 or WO 2021/197999 A1). Note: all citations are directed to the equivalent US publication.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 7, and 8, Assumma et al. disclose: (1) a starch composition (Abstract; paragraphs 0025-0030; Examples 2-5 in Table 3; Examples 9-12 in Table 5; Examples 18-21 in Table 7), comprising;
a starch (Examples 2-5 in Table 3; Examples 9-12 in Table 5; Examples 18-21 in Table 7; see also paragraphs 0113 & 0051); and
a vinyl alcohol-based polymer (Examples 2-5 in Table 3; Examples 9-12 in Table 5; Examples 18-21 in Table 7; see also paragraphs 0115 & 0058);
wherein:
the starch has an amylopectin ratio of 70% or more (Examples 2-5 in Table 3; Examples 9-12 in Table 5; Examples 18-21 in Table 7; see also paragraphs 0113 & 0051);
the starch composition comprises the starch in an amount of 40 to 90% by mass based on a total mass of the starch and the vinyl alcohol-based polymer (Examples 2-5 in Table 3; Examples 9-12 in Table 5; Examples 18-21 in Table 7; see also paragraph 0079); and
the starch composition comprises the vinyl alcohol-based polymer in an amount of 10 to 60% by mass based on the total mass of the starch and the vinyl alcohol based polymer (Examples 2-5 in Table 3; Examples 9-12 in Table 5; Examples 18-21 in Table 7; see also paragraph 0079);
(5) wherein an amount of a structural unit other than a structural unit derived from a vinyl ester monomer, a vinyl alcohol structural unit, and a vinyl acetal structural unit in the vinyl alcohol-based polymer is 10% by mass or less based on an amount of all structural units contained in the vinyl alcohol-based polymer (paragraphs 0027, 0056 & 0059);
(7) an article formed of the starch composition (Abstract; paragraph 0117); and (8) wherein the formed article is a film, a fiber, a nonwoven fabric, a woven fabric, a braid, or a tow (Abstract; paragraph 0117).
The vinyl alcohol-based polymers used in the exemplary embodiments of Assumma et al. have a degree of saponification of 98-98.8 (see paragraph 0115). Accordingly, the exemplary embodiments of Assumma et al. fail to disclose: (1) a degree of saponification of 96 mol% or less. However, the general teachings of Assumma et al. contemplate a degree of saponification of at least 90 mol% (see paragraph 0058). In light of this, it has been found that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists – see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate the exemplary embodiments of Assumma et al. with vinyl alcohol-based polymers having a degree of saponification of 96 mol% or less because: (a) the vinyl alcohol-based polymers used in the exemplary embodiments of Assumma et al. have a degree of saponification of 98-98.8; (b) the general teachings of Assumma et al. contemplate a degree of saponification of at least 90 mol%; and (c) it has been found that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 2, the teachings of Assumma et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. They fail to explicitly disclose: (2) wherein the starch composition has a dissolving temperature in water of 50 oC or lower. However, the skilled artisan would have expected the teachings of Assumma et al. to obviously embrace starches capable of achieving this property because the starches of Assumma et al. satisfy all the material/chemical limitations of the instantly claimed starches, including amylopectin ratio.
Therefore, the skilled artisan would have expected the teachings of Assumma et al. to obviously embrace starches capable of achieving the instantly claimed dissolving temperature property because: the starches of Assumma et al. satisfy all the material/chemical limitations of the instantly claimed starches, including amylopectin ratio.
Regarding claim 4, the teachings of Assumma et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. They fail to explicitly disclose: (4) wherein an amount of a structural unit derived from a vinyl monomer containing an oxyalkylene group in the vinyl alcohol-based polymer is 1 mol% or less based on an amount of all structural units contained in the vinyl alcohol-based polymer. Rather, they disclose an “other monomer” content of up to 5 mol% (see paragraphs 0027, 0056 & 0059), which embraces amounts of 1 mol% or less. In light of this, it has been found that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists – see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate the composition of Assumma et al. with the instantly claimed vinyl alcohol-based polymer (having 1 mol% or less of a structural unit derived from a vinyl monomer containing an oxyalkylene group) because: (a) Assumma et al. disclose an “other monomer” content of up to 5 mol%, which embraces amounts of 1 mol% or less; and (b) it has been found that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Assumma et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. They fail to explicitly disclose: (6) wherein a biodegradation rate of the starch composition in a soil at 14 days is 50% or more. However, the skilled artisan would have expected the teachings of Assumma et al. to obviously embrace embodiments capable of achieving this property because the composition of Assumma et al. obviously satisfies all of the material/chemical limitations (and amounts thereof) of the claimed invention.
Therefore, the skilled artisan would have expected the teachings of Assumma et al. to obviously embrace embodiments capable of achieving the instantly claimed biodegradation rate property because: the composition of Assumma et al. obviously satisfies all of the material/chemical limitations (and amounts thereof) of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assumma et al. (US 2024/0218576 A1 or WO 2021/197999 A1) in view of Groh et al. (US 2018/0086951 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the teachings of Assumma et al. are as set forth above and incorporated herein. Assumma et al. contemplate the use of additives, including processing aids (see paragraph 0066). However, they fail to disclose the use of (3) a plasticizer.
Groh et al. disclose a similar binder composition used to consolidate fabrics (see Abstract; paragraphs 0010-0039). Groh et al. demonstrate that plasticizers are recognized in the art as suitable additives for this type of binder composition (see paragraph 0072). In light of this, it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate the composition of Assumma et al. with a plasticizer because: (a) Assumma et al. contemplate the use of additives; (b) Groh et al. disclose a similar binder composition used to consolidate fabrics and demonstrate that plasticizers are recognized in the art as suitable additives for this type of binder composition; and (c) it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
International Search Report
The international search report cited one X-reference. This reference has been considered.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FEELY whose telephone number is (571)272-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/MICHAEL J FEELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights