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 19-29 and 37-39, in the reply filed on 8/28/26 is acknowledged.
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 19-20, 22-24, 26 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al (5288318).
Mayer, abstract, teaches a composition comprising:
30% to 70% cellulose acetate (cellulose material),
10% to 60% unmodified raw (whole) starch (additive) and
5% to 35% plasticizer including glycerols and glycerol acetates (alcohol).
Mayer, col. 3, teaches the composition may further comprise between about 0.5% and 8% by weight gelling agent (protein binder) selected from the group consisting of gellan gum, xanthum gum, alkali alginates and carrageenan.
Mayer, col. 8, teaches the injection molded compositions of this invention may include 0.5% to 10% by dry weight filler (additive).
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).
Regarding claim 20, Mayer teaches a cellulose acetate which is a cellulose derivative.
Regarding claim 22, Mayer teaches gelatin which is an animal protein binder.
Regarding claim 23, Mayer teaches glycerol with has 3 carbon atoms.
Regarding claim 24, Mayer teaches starch.
Regarding claim 26, Mayer teaches shellac which can be a natural preservative.
Regarding claim 37, Mayer teaches gelatin.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al (5288318) as applied to claim 19 in view of Ozasa et al (20050202229).
Although Mayer teaches gelling agents such as gelatin, Mayer does not teach vegetable gelling agents.
Ozasa teaches biodegradable moldings.
Ozasa teaches biodegradable moldings.
Ozasa, paragraph 122 of the PGPUB, teaches the strength adjusting agent is an additive to adjust (especially enhance) the strength of the expanded molded article and the biodegradable molded article.
Ozasa, paragraph 128 of the PGPUB, teaches thickener polysaccharide (microbe producing polysaccharide or vegetable polysaccharide, etc.) such as xanthan gum, gellan gum, guar gum, locust bean gum, pectin, gum Arabic, karaya gum, tara gum, carrageenan, furcellaran, agar, alginate, water-soluble carboxymethyl cellulose, etc. and salts thereof, and any mixture thereof.
It 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 to use locust bean gum, pectin, gum Arabic, karaya gum or tara gum as taught by Ozasa as the gelling agent as taught by Mayer as these vegetable gums are known thickeners and gelling agents used in biodegradable moldings.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al (5288318) as applied to claim 19 in view of Zhao et al (20040225269).
Although Mayer, col. 8, teaches fillers, Mayer does not teach urea.
Zhao teaches molded or extruded products.
Zhao, paragraph 50 of the PGPUB, teaches plasticizers may be used in the composition to modify the mechanical properties of products formed from the composition. In general, a plasticizer tends to lower the modulus and tensile strength, and to increase the ultimate tensile elongation, impact Strength, and tear strength of the polymeric product.
Zhao teaches the plasticizers can be urea and glycerin and mixtures thereof.
It 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 that urea as taught by Zhao can be incorporated as the plasticizer as taught by Mayer as Zhao teaches a combination of glycerin and urea is an effective plasticizer for molded products.
Claims 27-29 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer et al (5288318) in view of Ozasa et al (20050202229).
Although Mayer, col. 8, teaches fillers, Mayer does not teach the fillers to be wax, fat or a mineral.
Ozasa teaches biodegradable moldings.
Ozasa, paragraph 122 of the PGPUB, teaches the strength adjusting agent is an additive to adjust (especially enhance) the strength of the expanded molded article and the biodegradable molded article.
Ozasa, paragraph 126 of the PGPUB, teaches the strengthening agent can be fats and oils such as vegetable fat and oil or animal fat and oil.
Ozasa, paragraph 127 of the PGPUB, teaches waxes can be carnauba wax, candelilla wax, bees wax, paraffin, microcrystalline wax, and any mixture thereof.
Ozasa, paragraph 130 of the PGPUB, teaches insoluble minerals such as quartz powder, diatomaceous earth, talc, silicone, etc., and any mixture thereof.
It 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 to incorporate an vegetable fat, animal fat, besswax or talc as taught by Ozasa as the filler as taught by Mayer to enhance the strength of the final product.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20020130439 teaches compositions for producing moldings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFANIE J COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5836. The examiner can normally be reached 10am- 6pm M-F.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/STEFANIE J COHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1732 8/26/26
Prosecution Insights