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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Status
Claims 1-17 are pending.
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.
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(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Choi et al (herein ‘Choi I’; WO 2021/054721 A1; all citations are drawn to the US equivalent document, US 2022/0267815 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 4; Choi I discloses a poly(lactic acid-3-hydroxypropionic acid) block copolymer obtained from L-lactide and 3-hydroxypropionic acid polymer (p3HP), having a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 21.8 kDa [example 3, table 1; p. 0063]. The prepared block copolymer comprises 12 wt. % p3HP and 88 wt. % polylactide (PLA) and has a Mw of 83.8 kDa [example 3, table 3, table 4]. Choi I is silent with respect to the thickness of the crystalline layer of the block copolymer.
Applicants demonstrate a poly(lactic acid-3-hydroxypropionic acid) block copolymer having a Mw of 95kDa, comprising 14 wt. % p3HB and 86 wt. % PLA that was prepared from a p3HP having a Mw of 15 kDa, wherein the resultant block copolymer has a crystalline layer thickness of 11.12 nm [example 4].
In light of this evidence, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would expect embodiments of Choi I have crystalline layers having a thickness in the 5 to 14 nm range as the block copolymers of Choi I have similar structural features (ex. type, size, and number of blocks) as the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, 7, 10, and 12; Choi I teaches the block copolymers contained in the liquid or solid resin composition may be molded into an article or the polymers contained in plastics or woven materials after being molded into an article [p. 0019].
Regarding claim 8 and 9; Choi I teaches compounding biodegradable materials, such as PBAT and PBAS, with polylactide-based materials is known in the art to improve the elongation properties of the composition [p. 0005]. In light of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to compound a biodegradable material in the composition of Choi I.
Regarding claims 14, 16, and 17; Choi I teaches the block copolymer composition was designed to be an environmentally-friendly alternative to petroleum-based resins in the field of general plastics, such as food packaging materials and containers, and electronic product cases [p. 0003]. In light of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the block copolymer composition to prepare a packaging material, such as food packaging containers.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Choi et al (herein ‘Choi I’; WO 2021/054721 A1; all citations are drawn to the US equivelant document, US 2022/0267815 A1) as evidenced by Bench Chem (poly(3-hydroxypropionate) vs. polylactic acid (PLA): a comparative study of mechanical properties).
Choi I is silent with respect to the Young’s modulus of the poly(lactic acid-3-hydroxypropionic acid) block copolymer.
P3HP has a Young’s modulus of 0.1 to 0.8 GPa, and PLA has a Young’s modulus of 2.0-4.0 GPAa, as evidenced by Bench Chem.
In light of this, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would reasonably expect the block copolymer of Choi I to have a Young’s modulus falling within the range of polymer blocks thereof (e.g. 0.1-4.0 GPa), therefore obviously satisfying the claimed range.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Choi et al (herein ‘Choi I’; WO 2021/054721 A1; all citations are drawn to the US equivelant document, US 2022/0267815 A1) in further view of Choi et al (herein ‘Choi II’; US 2021/0309800 A1).
Choi I teaches the block copolymers contained in the liquid or solid resin composition may be molded into an article or the polymers contained in plastics or woven materials after being molded into an article [p. 0019]. Choi I is silent with respect to suitable types of resin molded articles.
Choi II exemplifies molding samples of substantially similar poly(lactic acid-3-hydroxypropionic acid) block copolymer into films [p. 00061-0062].
In light of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the block copolymer composition of Choi I is capable of being molded into a film in order to prepare an article.
Regarding claim 15; A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the prior art material appears to be capable of being used as a film.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter is the limitation that the resin has a crystalline layer thickness of 1.0 nm to 5.0 nm.
Choi I is the closest prior art of record. In example 2, Choi I prepares a block copolymer from p3HP having an Mw of 10.2 kDa, comprises 12 wt. % p3HP, and has a Mw of 67.3 kDa (20 min ROP) [example 2, tables 1, 3, 4]. Choi teaches when a polylactide-poly(3-hydroxypropionate) block copolymer is prepared by subjecting a lactide monomer to a ring-opening polymerization in the presence of a poly(3-hydroxypropionate) initiator, the poly(3-hydroxypropionate) initiator can be added in an amount of 0.1 parts by weight to 100 parts by weight relative to the lactide [p. 0031]. Choi I teaches the ring-opening polymerization can be performed at 150 to 200° C for 5 minutes to 10 hours [p. 0045]. Choi I teaches the polylactide-poly(3-hydroxypropionate) block copolymer prepared by the method according to the one embodiment can have a weight average molecular weight of 10,000 to 400,000 [p. 0047].
Choi I is silent with respect to the crystalline layer thickness of the block copolymer.
Applicants provide one example, example 9, that falls within the claimed crystalline layer thickness of 1.0 nm to 5.0 nm.
Applicants example 9 has a crystalline layer thickness of 4.59 nm, a Mw of 46 kDa, comprises 29 wt. % p3HB and 71 wt. % PLA and is prepared from p3HP having a Mw of 15 kDa (30-minute ROP).
In contrast, applicants example 8 has a crystalline layer thickness of 9.09 nm, a Mw of 51 kDa, comprises 26 wt. % p3HB and 74 wt. % PLA and is prepared from p3HP having a Mw of 15 kDa (40-minute ROP).
Example 8 is prepared in an identical manner to example 9, except the ROP of lactide is allowed to proceed for 10 additional minutes. It is unclear if the difference in crystalline layer thickness results from the p3HB/PLA composition of the block copolymer, or the Mw. Although the general teachings of Choi I embrace embodiments satisfying the composition and Mw of example 9, Choi I lack adequate motivation to arrive at a block copolymer having a crystalline layer thickness of 1.0 nm to 5.0 nm. Furthermore, the examiner has located no prior art of record, alone or in combination, that teaches or suggests suitable parameters to arrive at the claimed crystalline layer thickness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLEY GRACE HESTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM -5:00PM.
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.
/HOLLEY GRACE HESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1766
/RANDY P GULAKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights