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 (Claim(s) 1 – 10) in the reply filed on (10 – 27 – 2025) is acknowledged. Accordingly, Groups II & III (Claim(s) 11 – 15) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the same reply filed on (10 – 27 – 2025). Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1& 3 is / are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 reads “…80% to 30% by weight…” it should read “…30% to 80% by weight…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 10, is/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.
Claim(s) 1 recites the limitation “a biodegradable composite composition” in line(s) 6 – 7. Claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter. A claim is indefinite if the scope of the claim is not clear to a hypothetical person possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. One cannot ascertain whether "a biodegradable composite composition" recited in line 4 is the same as or different than "a composite material" previously recited in the preamble. As such, Claim 1 is found to be indefinite. As it currently reads “…a biodegradable article from a composite material…” and reads “…a) providing a biodegradable composite composition comprising a mixture of fibrous polymeric material and a biodegradable polymer…” it should read “…a) providing a biodegradable composite composition comprising a mixture of fibrous polymeric material and a biodegradable polymer to form a composite material…” for the purposes of claim consistency. Highlighting, that this will also fix the indefinite issue found in claim 4 regarding the same “…the composite material…” in line(s) 1 – 2. Similarly, claim(s) 3 – 10 which depend on claim 1 are also rejected.
Claim 4 has a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation 150 °C to 350 °C, and the claim also recites 190 °C to 250 °C which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of examination, the injection molding machine temperature range will be understood to be the broad recitation of 150 °C to 350 °C.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
A.) Claim(s) 1, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joshua Munoz (US 2020299504 A1, hereinafter Munoz)Regarding claim 1,
A method of forming a biodegradable article from a composite material, said article comprising one or more walls forming an inner surface and an outer surface and said method comprising:
a) providing a biodegradable composite composition comprising a mixture of fibrous polymeric material and
a biodegradable polymer;
b) heating the composite material and injecting it into a mold allowing the composite material to adopt the shape of the mold, thereby forming the article;
c) cooling the formed article to allow to stabilize and fix the shape of the article,
d) removing the formed article from the mold; and
e) optionally applying one or more coating layers to the inner and/or outer surfaces of the one or more article walls
Munoz teaches the following:
([0025]) teaches that Fibers may include cellulose, hemi-cellulose, lignin, pectin, waxes, or water-soluble components. Where cellulose fibers are understood to be a polymeric fibrous material.
([0017]) teaches the polymer is a biopolymer, a biodegradable petrochemical polymer, or a nondegradable petrochemical polymer. A biopolymer, as used herein, refers to a polymer derived from a living organism. As such, the use of a biodegradable polymer is understood to be disclosed.
([0007]) teaches that the compounded bioplastic pellets are then molded, whether through molding methods such as injection, blow, compression, extrusion, thermoforming and the like, into their commercial product applications (Step 1.11).
& e.) ([0005]) teaches that embodiments where the molded plastic is a storage container, food storage container, storage and freezer bag or pouch. ([0050]) teaches that in certain embodiments, the molded plastic is a food storage container and lid, wherein the lid secures onto the bottom base of the food storage container. Accordingly, to mold and operate a molded storage container and lid and/or freezer bag or pouch, it is understood that the molded article must be removed from the mold. Additionally, the molded article is either cooled prior to or simultaneously when removed from the mold or cooled subsequently to be utilized as a storage container and lid and/or freezer bag or pouch. Accordingly, the case law for the rearrangement of method steps may be recited if any perceived discrepancies exist regarding the cooling and removal of the molded article.
It should be noted that the application of one or more coating layers to the inner and/or outer surfaces of the one or more article wall is understood to be optional.
B.) Claim(s) 2, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz in view of Davies et al. (Structure and properties of fibres from sea-grass (Zostera marina), 2007, hereinafter Davies)
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the fibrous polymeric material is of the species Zostera marina
comprising from 40 to 70% by weight cellulose and/or hemicellulose,
from 20% to 50% by weight non-cellulosic polysaccharides and
from 1% to 10% by weight of residual matter;
wherein the fibrous polymeric material has an average particle size from 10 µm to 10 mm and
the fibrous polymeric material constitutes 20% to 70% by weight of the composite composition.
Munoz teaches the following:
([0035]) teaches that the processed biological material is derived from various plants including seaweed and algal derivatives, other reeds/grasses, tree varietals amongst others.
([0053]) teaches that following the drying, the method may include processing (e.g., milling) to reduce the biological material to a desired particle size (e.g., less than 5 mm). Where 5mm or less is found to overlap with applicant’s range of 10 µm to 10 mm
([0045]) teaches that the composition includes a processed biological material at a weight percentage of 20% to 60%. Which is found to overlap with applicant’s range of 20% to 70% by weight of the composite composition.
Regarding Claim 2, Munoz is silent on the fibrous polymeric material is of the species Zostera marina and its composition. In analogous art for natural fibres used in structural applications, particularly for increasing interest for polymer reinforcement in applications seeking environmentally friendly materials, (Abstract), Davies suggests details regarding the fibrous polymeric material is of the species Zostera marina and its composition, and in this regard, Davies teaches the following:
(Abstract) Zostera marina eel-grass collected from the Baltic coast. This species of sea-grass is shown to contain small diameter fibres. (Table 5) gives a cell-wall composition of various fibres. Highlighting, that as the variety of fibre changes the cellulose content changes.
The fibers are composed of ∼57% cellulose,
∼38% of non-cellulosic polysaccharides (mainly xylan) and
∼5% of residual matter so-called Klason lignin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing biologically-derived plastic formulations, utilized in a food storage container application that are injection molded of Munoz. By modifying the seaweed to be Zostera marina eel-grass, as taught by Davies. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement Zostera marina eel-grass as it provides for a natural fibres used in structural applications, particularly for increasing interest for polymer reinforcement, (Abstract). Highlighting, that the use of a known material, i.e, Zostera marina eel-grass in a known environment, namely structural applications / polymer reinforcement provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07. Additionally, as illustrated in (Table 5) changing the variety of fibre has an impact on the cellulose content. As such, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
C.) Claim(s) 3 – 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz in view of Nascimento et al. (US 20090018235 A1, hereinafter Nascimento)
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the biodegradable polymer is selected from the group comprising of Poly Lactic Acid or Polylactide (PLA),Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), Starch-based polymers, Cellulose acetate propionate, Polycaprolactone (PCL), Polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT), Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) and Polyester amide (PEA),
wherein the biodegradable polymer has a Melt Flow Index (MFI) of 10 to 30 g/10 min., and
wherein the biodegradable polymer constitutes 80% to 30% by weight of the composite composition.
Munoz teaches the following:
([0017]) teaches that the term “polymer” refers to a molecule including repeating subunits (e.g., polymerized monomers). For example, polymeric molecules may be based upon polylactic acid (PLA), polycaprolactone (PCL), poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) (PBAT), and polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), a starch derivative, amongst others.
([0046]) teaches that in certain embodiments, the plastic composition includes a polymer at a weight percentage of 20% to 60%. Which is found to overlap with applicant’s range of 80% to 30% by weight of the composite composition.
Regarding Claim 3, Munoz is silent on the biodegradable polymer has a Melt Flow Index (MFI) of 10 to 30 g/10 min. In analogous art for a polymeric composition prepared from a biodegradable polymer defined by poly-hydroxybutyrate (PHB) or copolymers thereof, and at least one other biodegradable polymer, such as polycaprolactone (PCL) and poly (lactic acid) (PLA), so as to alter its structure, and further at least one additive of the type of natural filler and natural fibers, (Abstract), Nascimento suggests details regarding the biodegradable polymer has a Melt Flow Index (MFI) of 10 to 30 g/10 min, and in this regard, Nascimento teaches the following:
(Table 7) gives a composition that comprises Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) and starch. As detailed, the composition has a Melt flow Index- MFI ISO 1133, 25 g/10 min.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing biologically-derived plastic formulations, utilized in a food storage container application that are injection molded of Munoz. By modifying the a biodegradable polymer to comprise a Melt flow Index of 25 g/10 min, as taught by Nascimento. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a biodegradable polymer with a Melt flow Index of 25 g/10 min as it provides for a an environmentally degradable material that may be injection molding the extruded and granulated composition for manufacturing products, ([0014]) including packages for food products (Abstract).
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the composite material is fed into an injection molding machine and heated to a temperature between 150 to 350 degrees Celsius, such as 190 to 225 degrees Celsius
Munoz teaches the following:
([0007]) teaches that the compounded bioplastic composition is turned into pellets that are then molded, whether through molding methods such as injection, blow, compression, extrusion, thermoforming and the like, into their commercial product applications (Step 1.11).
Regarding Claim 4, Munoz is silent on the injection molding machine being heated to a temperature between 150 to 350 degrees Celsius. In analogous art as applied above, Nascimento suggests details regarding the injection molding machine and heated to a temperature between 150 to 350 degrees Celsius, and in this regard, Nascimento teaches the following:
(Table 5) gives the injection molding conditions of the PHB, natural modifiers. As detailed, the various zones have a temperature range from 155 °C to 170 °C. Which is found to overlap with applicant’s range of 150 to 350 degrees Celsius
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing biologically-derived plastic formulations, utilized in a food storage container application that are injection molded of Munoz. By modifying the injection molded conditions to comprise various zones having a temperature range from 155 °C to 170 °C, as taught by Nascimento. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement injection molded conditions to comprise various zones having a temperature range from 155 °C to 170 °C, as it provides for tailoring and modifying the porosity as it is influenced by the processing conditions (pressure, time and temperature) and, consequently, will jeopardize the mechanical properties of the modified material, ([0056]).
D.) Claim(s) 3 – 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz in view of Shi et al. (US 20200283600 A1, hereinafter Shi)
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the biodegradable polymer is selected from the group comprising of Poly Lactic Acid or Polylactide (PLA),Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), Starch-based polymers, Cellulose acetate propionate, Polycaprolactone (PCL), Polybutylene adipate terephthalate (PBAT), Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) and Polyester amide (PEA),
wherein the biodegradable polymer has a Melt Flow Index (MFI) of 10 to 30 g/10 min., and
wherein the biodegradable polymer constitutes 80% to 30% by weight of the composite composition.
Munoz teaches the following:
([0017]) teaches that the term “polymer” refers to a molecule including repeating subunits (e.g., polymerized monomers). For example, polymeric molecules may be based upon polylactic acid (PLA), polycaprolactone (PCL), poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) (PBAT), and polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), a starch derivative, amongst others.
([0046]) teaches that in certain embodiments, the plastic composition includes a polymer at a weight percentage of 20% to 60%. Which is found to overlap with applicant’s range of 80% to 30% by weight of the composite composition.
Regarding Claim 3, Munoz is silent on the biodegradable polymer has a Melt Flow Index (MFI) of 10 to 30 g/10 min. In analogous art for an algae-based thermoplastic composition is provided that includes a protein-rich algae biomass selected from either microalgae, macroalgae that is molded (Abstract), Shi suggests details regarding the biodegradable polymer has a Melt Flow Index (MFI) of 10 to 30 g/10 min, and in this regard, Shi teaches the following:
(Table 7) gives a composition that comprises Polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) and starch. As detailed, the composition has a Melt flow Index- MFI ISO 1133, 25 g/10 min.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing biologically-derived plastic formulations, utilized in a food storage container application that are injection molded of Munoz. By modifying the a biodegradable polymer to comprise a Melt flow Index of 25 g/10 min, as taught by Shi. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a biodegradable polymer with a Melt flow Index of 25 g/10 min as it provides for a an environmentally degradable material that may be injection molding the extruded and granulated composition for manufacturing products, ([0014]) including packages for food products (Abstract).Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim ,
Wherein the composite material is fed into an injection molding machine and heated to a temperature between 150 to 350 degrees Celsius, such as 190 to 225 degrees Celsius
Munoz teaches the following:
([0007]) teaches that the compounded bioplastic composition is turned into pellets that are then molded, whether through molding methods such as injection, blow, compression, extrusion, thermoforming and the like, into their commercial product applications (Step 1.11).
Regarding Claim 4, Munoz is silent on the injection molding machine being heated to a temperature between 150 to 350 degrees Celsius. In analogous art as applied above, Shi suggests details regarding the injection molding machine and heated to a temperature between 150 to 350 degrees Celsius, and in this regard, Shi teaches the following:
(Table 5) gives the injection molding conditions of the PHB, natural modifiers. As detailed, the various zones have a temperature range from 155 °C to 170 °C. Which is found to overlap with applicant’s range of 150 to 350 degrees Celsius
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing biologically-derived plastic formulations, utilized in a food storage container application that are injection molded of Munoz. By modifying the injection molded conditions to comprise various zones having a temperature range from 155 °C to 170 °C, as taught by Shi. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement injection molded conditions to comprise various zones having a temperature range from 155 °C to 170 °C, as it provides for tailoring and modifying the porosity as it is influenced by the processing conditions (pressure, time and temperature) and, consequently, will jeopardize the mechanical properties of the modified material, ([0056]).
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the one or more walls have a thickness from 0.2 mm to 6 mm.
Regarding Claim 5, Munoz is silent on the injection molding machine article having walls with a thickness from 0.2 mm to 6 mm. In analogous art as applied above, Shi suggests details regarding the molded article having a thickness from 0.2 mm to 6 mm, and in this regard, Shi teaches the following:
([0037]) teaches potential applications of the present compositions can include molded thermoplastic materials made for plastic containers or flexible packaging materials amongst others. Methods of making these components can be by means of injection molding or thermal plastic extrusion. ([0016]) teaches that the present disclosure provides for a solid product including the thermoplastic composition of claim 1, wherein the composition is provided having a density from 400 to 2500 kg/m3. The foam composition can be configured to form a film or fiber defining a thickness from 1 micron to 3 cm. ([0124]) teaches The film or fiber may have a thickness from 1 micron or 10 micron or 25 micron to 1 cm or 2 cm or 3 cm or more. As such, molding a product with a thickness from 1 micron to 3 cm or more is found to overlap with applicant’s range of 0.2 mm to 6 mm.([012]) teaches an example of a polybutylene adipate-co-terephthalate (PBAT) film with properties suitable for agricultural purposes with a thickness from 0.1 to 10 mil, which is 0.0254mm to 0.254 mm and found to overlap with the end point of applicant’s range of 0.2 mm to 6 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing biologically-derived plastic formulations, utilized in a food storage container application that are injection molded of Munoz. By modifying the injection molded article to have a thickness of 1 micron to 3 cm, as taught by Shi due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a known article thickness and size, for its intended use, in a known environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested by Shi. Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. Additionally, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the article thickness and size being 0.2 mm to 6 mm. Nevertheless, the case law for the change in size may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), MPEP 2144.
D.) Claim(s) 6 – 8 & 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz in view of Plester et al. (US 20020172763 A1, hereinafter Plester)
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising applying one or more coating layers to the inner and/or outer surfaces of the one or more article walls.
Regarding Claim 6, Munoz is silent on the applying one or more coating layers to the inner and/or outer surfaces of the one or more article walls. In analogous art for molded plastic containers, used for packaged beverages and food, (Abstract), Plester suggests details regarding applying one or more coating layers to the inner and/or outer surfaces of the one or more article walls, and in this regard, Plester teaches the following:
(Abstract) teaches methods and systems are provided for making a coated plastic container, such as for packaged beverages, possessing a gas barrier and having enhanced resistance to loss in barrier due to handling abuses expansion of walls of the container. ([0029]) teaches accordingly, soft drink bottles of various sizes, other food containers or any other suitable container can be treated using the methods and systems described herein. ([0058]) teaches that the methods provide for applying a polymeric coating to a plastic container, preferably as a pre-treatment (undercoat) or post-treatment (overcoat), or more preferably as both pre- and post-treatment with a main inorganic coating in between.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing biologically-derived plastic formulations, utilized in a food storage container application that are injection molded of Munoz. By modifying the plastic molded article / container to comprise a coating, as taught by Plester. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a coating on the molded article / container as it provides for forming a gar barrier with enhanced resistance to loss in barrier due to handling abuses expansion of walls of the container, (Abstract).
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 6,
Further comprising applying the one or more coating layers by plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) or sol-gel coating.
Regarding Claim 7, Munoz is silent on applying the one or more coating layers by plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) or sol-gel coating. In analogous art as applied above, Plester suggests details regarding applying the one or more coating layers by plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) or sol-gel coating, and in this regard, Plester teaches the following:
(Claim 1) teaches that the system for making a coated plastic container possessing a gas barrier comprises at least one coating source that is arranged within the vacuum cell such that the plasma reacts with at least one of the process gases and a thin coating is deposited and bonded on the external surface of the plastic container, the thin coating comprising carbon from the carbon-containing gas and inorganic material from the inorganic coating material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing biologically-derived plastic formulations, utilized in a food storage container application that are injection molded of Munoz. By modifying the coating means to include a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process, as taught by Plester. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a coating means that comprise a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process as it provides for fabricating thin coating is deposited and bonded on the external surface of the plastic container, (Claim 1). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 6,
Wherein the one or more coating layers comprise a thermosetting polymer selected from the group comprising of polythene, polycarbonate, acrylic, polyamide, polystyrene, polypropylene, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polyester, poly lactic acid, polyhydroxyalkanoates and/or SiOx.
Regarding Claim 8, Munoz is silent on the one or more coating layers comprise a thermosetting polymer selected from the group aforementioned above. In analogous art as applied above, Plester suggests details regarding the one or more coating layers comprise a thermosetting polymer selected from the group aforementioned above, and in this regard, Plester teaches the following:
([0020]) teaches that the vaporizable polymer is one that can be evaporable under vacuum conditions without decomposing, such as a polyolefin, a polyester, a polycarbonate, or a mixture thereof. ([0061]) expands this list to include polypropylene. ([0040]) It is also contemplated that the coating contains 0.01 to 50% of one or more of the glass-forming additions to a coating composed primarily of SiO2 increase the gas barrier by a factor of two or more. As such, the use of polycarbonate, polyester, polypropylene and/or SiOx is understood to be disclosed for one or more coating layer materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing biologically-derived plastic formulations, utilized in a food storage container application that are injection molded of Munoz. By modifying the coating to comprise a material such as polycarbonate, polyester, polypropylene and/or SiOx, as taught by Plester. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a coating to comprise a material such as polycarbonate, polyester, polypropylene and/or SiOx as it provides for forming a gar barrier with enhanced resistance to loss in barrier due to handling abuses expansion of walls of the container, (Abstract). Additionally, the use of a known material, i.e., polycarbonate, polyester, polypropylene and/or SiOx in a known environment namely, a coating on a plastic article / container. Provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 6,
Further comprising applying 2 to 5 coating layers to the article.
Regarding Claim 10, Munoz is silent on applying 2 to 5 coating layers to the article. In analogous art as applied above, Plester suggests details regarding applying 2 to 5 coating layers to the article, and in this regard, Plester teaches the following:
([0062]) teaches that both the vaporized polymer gas method and the polymerizable organic gas method, can be used as a pre-treatment to a main coating (i.e. as undercoat between the bottle surface and the main coating), or as post-treatment to a main coating (i.e. as topcoat over the main coating), or as both a pre-treatment and a post-treatment to main coating. ([0073]) teaches that . For example, it may comprise three or four evaporators in series along the length of the coating housing beneath the conveyor 450 in the vacuum cell 430. (Claim 33) adds at least one polymer coating source disposed in a second vacuum cell capable of maintaining a vacuum, for adding one or more coatings of polymer onto the plastic container positioned within the second vacuum cell,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing biologically-derived plastic formulations, utilized in a food storage container application that are injection molded of Munoz. By modifying the coating process to include applying 2 to 5 coating layers to the article, as taught by Plester. Highlighting, implementing applying 2 to 5 coating layers to the article provides for implementing a pre-treatment, of the thin polymer coating, which is sandwiched between the container surface and the main coating, provides the following advantages: (i) it activates the surface of the container by providing free radicals, thus enabling better adhesion of a main coating; (ii) it provides better cover of substrate surface imperfections, as the polymer-forming gas flows into these imperfections better than the inorganic particles of the main coating, thereby reducing the incidence of pin-holes in the coating and improving the barrier; and (iii) it improves tolerance of main coating to abrasion and handling abuse, by providing a soft layer between the surface of the container and the main coating, thereby reducing the tendency of the main coating to crack during handling and thus reducing loss in barrier during handling abuse, ([0064]) and when used as a post-treatment, the thin polymer coating provides the following advantages: (i) it fills pin-holes in the main coating, and thus improves the barrier; (ii) it enhances coating flexibility, by enabling the main coating to flex and expand without cracking, thereby reducing loss in barrier due to container expansion under severe conditions; and (iii) it protects the main coating from handling abuse, thus reducing loss in barrier due to bottling plant, distribution, or market conditions; and (iv) it reduces coating brittleness by providing topcoat cushioning, thus improving tolerance to handling abuse and/or container expansion, ([0065]).E.) Claim(s) 7 – 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munoz in view Plester and in further view of WZR Ceramic Solutions (Surface Coating for Metal and Plastic with Ceramic Coating, 2020, hereinafter WRZ)Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 6,
Further comprising applying the one or more coating layers by plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) or sol-gel coating.
Regarding Claim 7, Munoz is silent on applying the one or more coating layers by plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) or sol-gel coating. In analogous art as applied above, Plester suggests details regarding applying the one or more coating layers by plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) or sol-gel coating, and in this regard, Plester teaches the following:
(Claim 1) teaches that the system for making a coated plastic container possessing a gas barrier comprises at least one coating source that is arranged within the vacuum cell such that the plasma reacts with at least one of the process gases and a thin coating is deposited and bonded on the external surface of the plastic container, the thin coating comprising carbon from the carbon-containing gas and inorganic material from the inorganic coating material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing biologically-derived plastic formulations, utilized in a food storage container application that are injection molded of Munoz. By modifying the coating means to include a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process, as taught by Plester. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include a coating means that comprise a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process as it provides for fabricating thin coating is deposited and bonded on the external surface of the plastic container, (Claim 1). Highlighting, that the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 7, Munoz as modified by Plester is silent on applying the one or more coating layers by a sol-gel coating. In analogous art for coating an article, WRZ suggest details regarding comparing CVD and sol-gel coating, and details regarding applying one or more coating layers by a sol-gel, (Which processes are used to produce ceramic layers?, ¶1), WRZ suggests details regarding applying the one or more coating layers by a sol-gel coating, and in this regard, WRZ teaches the following:
(Which processes are used to produce ceramic layers?, ¶1) teaches that thick layers comprise a height of (>30 µm), and production of thin layers comprise a height of (<30 µm). Adding, that physical vapor deposition (PVD), CVD are used to make thin layers. (What are the advantages of sol-gel coating over PVD, CVD and thermal spray processes?, ¶1) adds that the advantage of the sol-gel process over all known coating processes is primarily the significantly reduced production costs of the ceramic layers. The process does not require complex equipment or closed chambers, nor does it require a high energy input. Therefore, the sol-gel process is the most sustainable and environmentally friendly method of applying ceramic coatings. In addition, unlike others, the process does not pose a safety risk for its user. Additionally, it is possible to produce both relatively thick (up to 50 µm) and very thin layers (approx. 500 nm), thus covering a very wide range of layer thicknesses. As such, implementing a sol-gel process provides for flexibility in tailoring the coating thickness to comprise layers that are either thin layers X < 30 µm or thick layers X > 30 µm, i.e, from 500 nm up to 50 µm. Where, 500 nm up to 50 µm is found to overlap with applicant’s range of 40 µm to 3 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing biologically-derived plastic formulations, utilized in a food storage container application that are injection molded of Munoz as modified by Plester. By further modifying the coating process to comprise a sol-gel coating process, as taught by WRZ. Highlighting, implementing a sol-gel coating via dip, spin coating or thermal spray coating process provides for tailoring the thickness of the coating to be from 500 nm up to 50 µm, (What are the advantages of sol-gel coating over PVD, CVD and thermal spray processes?, ¶1). Additionally, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, i.e, PVD, PECVD / CVD and Sol-gel coating processes provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 6,
Wherein the one or more coating layers comprise a thermosetting polymer selected from the group comprising of polythene, polycarbonate, acrylic, polyamide, polystyrene, polypropylene, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, polyester, poly lactic acid, polyhydroxyalkanoates and/or SiOx.
Regarding Claim 8, Munoz as modified by Plester teaches a method wherein the one or more coating layer comprise a thermosetting polymer of SiOx ([0039]). However, Munoz as modified by Plester is silent on the one or more coating layers comprise a thermosetting polymer selected from the group aforementioned above via sol-gel.
In analogous art as applied above, WRZ suggests details regarding the one or more coating layers comprise a thermosetting polymer selected from the group aforementioned above, and in this regard, WRZ teaches the following:
(What Ceramic Coatings Do We Offer) teaches that Our coatings are mainly based on SiO2 systems, for whose production different precursors are used. The choice of the precursor used for the synthesis of a sol has a decisive effect on the final properties of the coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing biologically-derived plastic formulations, utilized in a food storage container application that are injection molded of Munoz as modified by Plester. By further modifying the coating to comprise a material such as polycarbonate, polyester, polypropylene and/or SiOx, as taught by WRZ. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implement a coating to comprise a material such as SiOx as it provides for tailoring various properties such as hardness, Corrosion / wear resistance and optical properties, (What properties do ceramic coatings offer) . Additionally, the use of a known material, i.e., polycarbonate, polyester, polypropylene and/or SiOx in a known environment namely, a coating on a plastic article / container. Provides for the recitation of known material in the art case law. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 6,
Wherein the coating thickness is from 40 µm to 3 mm.
Regarding Claim 9, Munoz as modified by Plester is silent on the coating thickness being from 40 µm to 3 mm. In analogous art as applied above, WRZ suggests details regarding the coating thickness being from 40 µm to 3 mm, and in this regard, WRZ teaches the following:
(What is the principle of sol-gel coating?, ¶1) teaches that the sol-gel process is the most sustainable and environmentally friendly method of applying ceramic coatings. In addition, unlike others, the process does not pose a safety risk for its user. Since several processes (dip, spin or spray coating) can be used for sol-gel coating, it is possible to produce both relatively thick (up to 50 µm) and very thin layers (approx. 500 nm), thus covering a very wide range of layer thicknesses. (Which processes are used to produce ceramic layers?, ¶1) teaches that thick layers comprise a height of (>30 µm), and production of thin layers comprise a height of (<30 µm). As such, implementing a sol-gel process provides for flexibility in tailoring the coating thickness to comprise layers that are either thin layers X < 30 µm or thick layers X > 30 µm, i.e, from 500 nm up to 50 µm. Where, 500 nm up to 50 µm is found to overlap with applicant’s range of 40 µm to 3 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing biologically-derived plastic formulations, utilized in a food storage container application that are injection molded of Munoz as modified by Plester. By further modifying the coating thickness to be 500 nm up to 50 µm, as taught by WRZ. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implementing a sol gel coating thickness to be 500 nm up to 50 µm, as it provides for tailoring various properties, (What properties do ceramic coatings offer?, ¶1) and tailoring the types of coating process that can be used, sol-gel via dip coating vs. spin coating vs. spray coating vs. PVD, CVD (What are the advantages of sol-gel coating over PVD, CVD and thermal spray processes?, ¶1 & What coating processes do we offer, ¶2 – 3). Accordingly, due to the layer thickness impacting the type of coating process that can be utilized, the case law for result effective variable may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B).
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 6,
Further comprising applying 2 to 5 coating layers to the article.
Regarding Claim 10, Munoz as modified by Plester is silent on applying 2 to 5 coating layers to the article. In analogous art as applied above, WRZ suggests details regarding applying 2 to 5 coating layers to the article, and in this regard, WRZ teaches the following:
(What coating processes do we offer? ¶2) teaches that the spray coating process can be used to coat much more complex geometries. Here, the sol is applied to the component in finely atomized form with the aid of a spray gun and air pressure. The process allows multiple applications, allowing the desired layer thickness (of the coating) to be set very precisely. In this way, layer thicknesses of approx. 1 – 50 µm can be achieved. Highlighting, while a number is not specified i.e., multiple applications implies at least two. As such, WRZ is found to teach applying 2 to 5 coating layers to the article
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing biologically-derived plastic formulations, utilized in a food storage container application that are injection molded of Munoz as modified by Plester. By further modifying the coating by applying 2 to 5 coating layers to the article, as taught by WRZ. Highlighting, one would be motivated to implementing applying 2 to 5 coating layers to the article, as it provides for tailoring desired layer thickness of the coating to be set very precisely, (What coating processes do we offer? ¶2). Highlighting, that the number of coating layers is understood to impact the thickness of the final coating. As such, the case law for result effective variables may be recited. Where, it is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2143 II (B). Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klein et al. (US 20080090039 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) that the invention relates to a composite material (1), to containers made therefrom and to a method for producing the composite material (1), which comprises a substrate (2) and a coating (3) on the substrate (2), wherein the coating (3) provides at least a first region (31) facing the substrate (2) and at least a second region (32) facing away the substrate (2), and wherein the first region (31) comprises a barrier layer (4) and the second region (32) a passivation layer (5).
Barrow et al. (US 5585136 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) a method for producing thick ceramic films of greater than 10 μm on selected substrates is described. Conventional sol gel solutions are loaded with up to about 90% by weight of finely divided ceramic particles and mixed. The resulting slurry or paint can be either spun or dip coated or sprayed or painted onto a planar or other substrate, fired to remove the organic materials and to develop a microcrystalline structure. The fired film may then be heated. Composite films are also contemplated.
Boutroy et al. (US 20100193461 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) that the invention relates to a method that uses a low-pressure plasma to deposit a barrier coating on a substrate, of the type in which the plasma is obtained by partial ionization, under the influence of an electromagnetic field, of a reaction fluid injected at low pressure into a treatment zone. The method includes at least a step in which a first layer, obtained in the plasma state bearing a mixture containing at least one organosilicon compound and one other compound, is deposited on the substrate; a step in which a second layer, essentially consisting of silicon oxide having formula SiOx.
Tolibas-Spurlock et al. (US 20100044267 A1) – teaches in the (Abstract) a fully compostable container is provided having an enclosed body with an opening through an interior surface and an exterior surface. The enclosed body having a plant fiber structural layer configured to biodegrade in ambient conditions into nontoxic residue and a fluid barrier layer formed on a first side of the structural layer to form the interior surface of the enclosed body,
Robe