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 1, 2,and 10-13, in the reply filed on 07/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 08/20/2026.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raith et al. (US 2014/0018574 A1, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Raith teaches a poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer comprising structural sections of the general formula [0047]
PNG
media_image1.png
94
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein n is an integer ≥6 [0010], and different structural sections that are β-butyrolactone, δ-valerolactone, or ε-caprolactone [0047], wherein the relative weight-average molecular weight of poly-3-hydroxypropionate may be up to 100,000, or up to 200 000 or more [0049], wherein the aforementioned relative weight-average molecular weight is normally ≥1000 or ≥5000 [0050], wherein the proportion by weight of structural sections of the general formula in such poly-3-hydroxypropionate may, for example, be ≥40% by weight [0051], which reads on a poly(3-hydroxypropionic acid) copolymer, that is optionally a poly(3-hydroxypropionic acid) block copolymer, comprising: a repeating unit of the Chemical Formula 1, which is a repeating unit of 3-hydroxypropionic acid, and a repeating unit of the Chemical Formula 2, which is a repeating unit of lactone, wherein the number (m) of repeating units of the Chemical Formula 1 is an integer of 6 or more, wherein the number (n) of repeating units of the Chemical Formula 2 is an integer of 4 or more, and L in the Chemical Formula 2 is a linear alkyl having 3 to 5 carbon atoms. The number (n) is based on the calculations (90.08 * 6 + 86.090 * x) = 1,000, x = 5, (90.08 * 6 + 100.117 * x) = 1,000, x = 5, (90.08 * 6 + 114.14 * x) = 1,000, x = 4, (90.08 * 6 + 86.090 * x) = 200,000, x = 2317, (90.08 * 6 + 100.117 * x) = 200,000, x = 1992, (90.08 * 6 + 114.14 * x) = 200,000, and x = 1747.
Raith does not teach that the poly(3-hydroxypropionic acid) copolymer is a poly(3-hydroxypropionic acid) block copolymer. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the arrangement of Raith’s structural sections of the general formula
PNG
media_image1.png
94
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and Raith’s different structural sections that are β-butyrolactone, δ-valerolactone, or ε-caprolactone in Raith’s poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer to be a block arrangement. The proposed modification would read on the poly(3-hydroxypropionic acid) copolymer is a poly(3-hydroxypropionic acid) block copolymer as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Raith teaches a poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer comprising structural sections of the general formula [0047]
PNG
media_image1.png
94
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein n is an integer ≥6 [0010], and different structural sections that are β-butyrolactone, δ-valerolactone, or ε-caprolactone [0047], which means that the only possible arrangements of Raith’s structural sections of the general formula
PNG
media_image1.png
94
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and Raith’s different structural sections that are β-butyrolactone, δ-valerolactone, or ε-caprolactone in Raith’s poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer are alternating, random, and block. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Raith does not teach with sufficient specificity that the number (m) of repeating units of the Chemical Formula 1 is an integer of 100 to 5000, and that the number (n) of repeating units of the Chemical Formula 2 is an integer of 100 to 5000. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select Raith’s n in Raith’s general formula
PNG
media_image1.png
94
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
to be an integer ≥100 and ≤5000, and to select the number of Raith’s different structural sections that are β-butyrolactone, δ-valerolactone, or ε-caprolactone to be ≥100 and ≤5000. The proposed modification would read on wherein the number (m) of repeating units of the Chemical Formula 1 is an integer of 100 to 5000, and wherein the number (n) of repeating units of the Chemical Formula 2 is an integer of 100 to 5000 as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Raith teaches that the poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer comprises structural sections of the general formula [0047]
PNG
media_image1.png
94
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein n is an integer ≥6 [0010], and different structural sections that are β-butyrolactone, δ-valerolactone, or ε-caprolactone [0047], wherein the relative weight-average molecular weight of poly-3-hydroxypropionate may be up to 100,000, or up to 200 000 or more [0049], wherein the aforementioned relative weight-average molecular weight is normally ≥1000 or ≥5000 [0050], wherein the proportion by weight of structural sections of the general formula in such poly-3-hydroxypropionate may, for example, be ≥40% by weight [0051], which means that the lower limit to Raith’s n in Raith’s general formula
PNG
media_image1.png
94
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is 6 and that there is no upper limit, and which means that the lower limit to the number of Raith’s different structural sections that are β-butyrolactone, δ-valerolactone, or ε-caprolactone is 4 and that there is no upper limit. Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 10, Raith teaches that the poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer [0047] is prepared by processes for preparing poly-3-hdyroxypropionate that are known in the prior art [0033], that the relative weight-average molecular weight of poly-3-hydroxypropionate may be up to 100,000, or up to 200 000 or more [0049], and that the aforementioned relative weight-average molecular weight is normally ≥1000 or ≥5000 [0050], which reads on a resin comprising the poly(3-hydroxypropionic acid) block copolymer of claim 1 as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Raith teaches that the poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer is used in a process [0047] that is a process for preparing acrylic acid by a thermolysis of the poly-3-hydroxypropionate catalyst by at least one molecular organic active compound [0025], which reads on a resin composition comprising the resin of claim 10 as claimed.
Claims 2, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raith et al. (US 2014/0018574 A1, cited in IDS) as applied to claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Gross et al. (US 5,439,985, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Raith renders obvious the poly(3-hydroxypropionic acid) block copolymer according to claim 1 as explained above.
Raith does not teach that the poly(3-hydroxypropionic acid) block copolymer further comprises a repeating unit represented by the Chemical Formula 3, which is a repeating unit of a lactide, wherein the number (I) of repeating units of the Chemical Formula 3 is an integer of 100 to 5000. However, Gross teaches diblock copolymers of a poly(β-hydroxyalkanoate) and a linear polyester formed by lactide ring-opening polymerization (1:48-51), wherein examples of a suitable lactide have the following structural formula
PNG
media_image2.png
148
138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(4:5-18), wherein the deblock copolymer has the following structural formula
PNG
media_image3.png
56
29
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where x and y are preferably in the range of between about 10 and 100 (5:23-32). Raith and Gross are analogous art because both references are in the same field of endeavor of a copolymer of a hydroxyalkanoate. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use Gross’s
PNG
media_image3.png
56
29
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, wherein x is about 100, to modify Raith’s poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer. The proposed modification would read on wherein the poly(3-hydroxypropionic acid) block copolymer further comprises a repeating unit represented by the Chemical Formula 3, which is a repeating unit of a lactide, wherein the number (I) of repeating units of the Chemical Formula 3 is an integer of 100 as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Gross teaches that the
PNG
media_image3.png
56
29
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, where x is about 10 and 100 is beneficial for being useful in a deblock copolymer that has the following structural formula
PNG
media_image3.png
56
29
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where y is preferably in the range of between about 10 and 100 that is beneficial for being hydrodegradable and biodegradable (5:23-32), which would have been desirable for modifying Raith’s poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer because Raith teaches that the poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer is used in a process [0047] that is a process for preparing acrylic acid by a thermolysis of the poly-3-hydroxypropionate catalyst by at least one molecular organic active compound [0025].
Regarding claim 12, Raith renders obvious the resin composition according to claim 11 as explained above. Raith teaches the poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer [0047] that is prepared as a copolymer by a biotechnological route [0048].
Raith does not teach that the resin composition is molded into one or more resin molded articles selected from the group consisting of an injection molded article, an extrusion molded article, a blow molded article, an inflation molded article, a fiber, a nonwoven fabric, a foam, a sheet, and a film. However, Gross teaches polymer films cast from chloroform solution onto NaCl plates to record infrared spectra (5:57-59), and an annealed film of PHB-[L]-PLA or PHB-PCL (11:23-46), wherein the polymers are diblock copolymers of a poly(β-hydroxyalkanoate) and a linear polyester formed by lactone or lactide ring-opening polymerization (1:48-51). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious prepare polymer films cast from chloroform solution onto NaCl plates to record infrared spectra, or an annealed film, wherein the polymer films or annealed film comprise Raith’s poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer prepared as a copolymer by a biotechnological route, as suggested by Gross. The proposed modification would read on wherein the resin composition is molded into one or more resin molded articles selected from a film as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Gross teaches that polymer films cast from chloroform solution onto NaCl plates are beneficial for recording infrared spectra (5:57-59), that the annealed film of PHB-[L]-PLA or PHB-PCL is beneficial for being an annealed film (11:23-46) for X-ray diffraction (6:12-19), and that the polymers are diblock copolymers of a poly(β-hydroxyalkanoate) and a linear polyester formed by lactone or lactide ring-opening polymerization (1:48-51), which means that the proposed modification would have been beneficial for recording infrared spectra or X-ray diffraction of Raith’s poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer prepared as a copolymer by a biotechnological route, which would have been desirable because Raith teaches that the poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer [0047] is prepared as a copolymer by a biotechnological route [0048], that ATR infrared spectra were recorded for solid poly-3-hydroxypropionate [0340], and that there was ATR crystal of solid poly-3-hydroxypropionate [0340].
Regarding claim 13, Raith renders obvious the poly(3-hydroxypropionic acid) block copolymer as set forth in claim 1 as explained above. Raith teaches the poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer [0047] that is prepared as a copolymer by a biotechnological route [0048].
Raith does not teach an article comprising the poly(3-hydroxypropionic acid) block copolymer as set forth in claim 1. However, Gross teaches polymer films cast from chloroform solution onto NaCl plates to record infrared spectra (5:57-59), and an annealed film of PHB-[L]-PLA or PHB-PCL (11:23-46), wherein the polymers are diblock copolymers of a poly(β-hydroxyalkanoate) and a linear polyester formed by lactone or lactide ring-opening polymerization (1:48-51). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious prepare polymer films cast from chloroform solution onto NaCl plates to record infrared spectra, or an annealed film, wherein the polymer films or annealed film comprise Raith’s poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer prepared as a copolymer by a biotechnological route, as suggested by Gross. The proposed modification would read on an article comprising the poly(3-hydroxypropionic acid) block copolymer as set forth in claim 1 as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Gross teaches that polymer films cast from chloroform solution onto NaCl plates are beneficial for recording infrared spectra (5:57-59), that the annealed film of PHB-[L]-PLA or PHB-PCL is beneficial for being an annealed film (11:23-46) for X-ray diffraction (6:12-19), and that the polymers are diblock copolymers of a poly(β-hydroxyalkanoate) and a linear polyester formed by lactone or lactide ring-opening polymerization (1:48-51), which means that the proposed modification would have been beneficial for recording infrared spectra or X-ray diffraction of Raith’s poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer prepared as a copolymer by a biotechnological route, which would have been desirable because Raith teaches that the poly-3-hydroxypropionate copolymer [0047] is prepared as a copolymer by a biotechnological route [0048], that ATR infrared spectra were recorded for solid poly-3-hydroxypropionate [0340], and that there was ATR crystal of solid poly-3-hydroxypropionate [0340].
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID KARST whose telephone number is (571)270-7732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 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 Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/DAVID T KARST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights