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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1–5 and 7–13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Walsem et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0315681 (“Van Walsem”), in view of Raith et al., U.S. Patent Publication No 2014/0018574 (“RAITH”).
With respect to claim 1, Van Walsem teaches degradation of PHA polymers to recover the corresponding monomer components and expressly identifies P3HP as a PHA homopolymer. Van Walsem explains that degradation of P3HP produces acrylic acid and specifically states that “poly-3HP can be converted directly to acrylic acid via thermolysis using a different catalyst.” See Van Walsem ¶¶ [0045]–[0053], particularly ¶ [0046], p. 17, identifying P3HP as a PHA homopolymer, and ¶ [0053], p. 17, identifying direct conversion of P3HP to acrylic acid by thermolysis.
Van Walsem further teaches that metal catalysts can lower the temperature required to initiate thermal decomposition and increase the rate of thermal decomposition at pyrolysis temperatures of approximately 200–325°C. See ¶ [0093], p. 22. More importantly, Van Walsem expressly teaches that the catalyst may be an “oxide” containing a metal ion selected from, inter alia, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, molybdenum, nickel, palladium, silver, tungsten, vanadium, and zinc. See ¶ [0094], p. 22. Vanadium is Group 5; chromium, molybdenum and tungsten are Group 6; iron, cobalt and nickel are Groups 8–10; palladium is Group 10; copper and silver are Group 11; and zinc is Group 12. Thus, Van Walsem expressly teaches the genus of metal-oxide catalysts encompassing the Group 5–12 transition-metal-oxide limitation of claim 1. Van Walsem further explains that such catalyst promotes elimination or unzipping reactions of the PHA polymer chains and improves conversion efficiency and selectivity. Id.
Accordingly, Van Walsem supplies the claimed P3HP substrate, the thermolytic conversion of P3HP to acrylic acid, and the Group 5–12 metal-oxide catalyst. Although Van Walsem does not expressly set forth all of the subsequently claimed melt-processing conditions, RAITH addresses the same chemical conversion—thermolysis of P3HP to acrylic acid—and provides the ordinary process conditions for carrying out that reaction in the molten state. RAITH teaches that thermolysis is advantageously conducted from a P3HP melt because the catalyst can dissolve or mix completely and homogeneously with the molten P3HP. See RAITH ¶ [0092], pp. 6–7.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply RAITH's melt-processing and thermal-processing conditions to Van Walsem's metal-oxide-catalyzed P3HP thermolysis because both references concern the same substrate, the same P3HP-to-acrylic-acid thermolysis reaction, and catalytic promotion of that reaction. Van Walsem expressly identifies increased thermal-decomposition rate and improved conversion/selectivity as benefits of the catalyst, while RAITH explains that operating from the P3HP melt promotes homogeneous catalyst contact. The combination therefore constitutes application of known process conditions to a known reaction for their recognized advantages and would have produced predictable results. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Claim 2
Claim 2 further requires melting the P3HP before thermal decomposition. RAITH expressly teaches that the P3HP thermolysis is advantageously executed from the P3HP melt and that the catalyst can be completely and homogeneously mixed with the P3HP melt. See ¶ [0092], pp. 6–7.
It therefore would have been obvious to melt the P3HP before carrying out Van Walsem's metal-oxide-catalyzed thermal decomposition so that the oxide catalyst could be dispersed through the P3HP phase and obtain improved catalyst/polymer contact.
Claim 3
Claim 3 requires melting at 150–200°C. RAITH teaches that the melting point of P3HP depends particularly on weight-average molecular weight and polydispersity. RAITH teaches that P3HP having molecular weights of approximately 1,000–20,000 normally has a melting point no greater than about 150°C, while P3HP having molecular weights up to approximately 100,000 or 150,000 remains melt-processable at temperatures up to approximately 200°C. RAITH then recommends conducting thermolysis from the P3HP melt. See ¶¶ [0089]–[0092], p. 6.
Thus, selecting a melt-stage operating temperature within 150–200°C would have been an obvious process selection for obtaining a fully molten P3HP feed before the higher-temperature decomposition step. The temperature within the known operative range would have been selected according to P3HP molecular weight, polydispersity, heat-transfer rate, and desired residence time. Such optimization of a known process temperature would have been within ordinary skill. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 4
Claim 4 requires thermal decomposition at 200–250°C. Van Walsem expressly teaches heating temperatures of approximately 200–350°C and specifically identifies 205, 210, 215, 220, 225, 230, 235, 240, 245 and 250°C as suitable temperatures. See ¶ [0091], p. 22.
RAITH independently teaches P3HP thermolysis temperatures broadly from 50–400°C, advantageously 150–220°C, and preferably 160–200°C. See ¶ [0094], p. 7. The claimed 200–250°C interval therefore overlaps and lies within temperatures expressly taught for P3HP thermal decomposition.
Claim 5
Claim 5 requires a difference between the melting temperature and thermal-decomposition temperature of 20–130°C. As discussed above, RAITH teaches P3HP melt processing at temperatures dictated by P3HP molecular weight and melting point, including temperatures reaching approximately 150–200°C, while Van Walsem expressly teaches decomposition temperatures from 200–250°C within its broader range.
Once the melt-stage and decomposition-stage temperatures are individually known result-effective operating variables, the claimed temperature difference follows from selection of the two known temperatures. For example, use of a melt-stage temperature of 180°C followed by decomposition at 220°C produces a 40°C difference, well within the claimed 20–130°C interval. A person of ordinary skill would have selected the respective temperatures to maintain P3HP in a molten condition before providing sufficient additional thermal energy to initiate catalytic decomposition. The claimed difference therefore represents the arithmetic consequence of routine selection within the known processing windows rather than a separate unobvious process condition. See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329–30 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Claims 7 and 8
Claims 7 and 8 require solvent-free melting and solvent-free thermal decomposition, respectively. RAITH expressly teaches that, although solvent, dispersant or slurrying agent may be employed, the presence of those materials generally reduces the splitting rate under otherwise identical conditions. See ¶ [0088], p. 6. RAITH consequently teaches that thermolysis is advantageously conducted from the P3HP melt, ¶ [0092], and expressly describes the splitting mixture as potentially being the “exclusive melt” of P3HP, ¶ [0097], p. 7.
A person of ordinary skill therefore would have had an express reason to conduct both melting and thermolysis without an added solvent: avoiding the solvent-induced reduction in splitting rate, providing a high concentration of P3HP, facilitating catalyst/polymer contact, and avoiding subsequent solvent separation. The solvent-free limitations of claims 7 and 8 would have been obvious process choices taught by RAITH.
Claim 9
Claim 9 specifies zinc oxide, iron oxide, copper oxide, nickel oxide, cobalt oxide, manganese oxide, chromium oxide and molybdenum oxide as alternative transition-metal oxides. Van Walsem expressly teaches an oxide catalyst containing, inter alia, zinc, iron, copper, nickel, cobalt, chromium or molybdenum. See ¶ [0094], p. 22.
Because claim 9 is written in the alternative, disclosure of any one claimed species is sufficient to meet the limitation. Van Walsem expressly identifies multiple claimed species and therefore provides a direct reason for selecting, for example, ZnO, an iron oxide, CuO, NiO, a cobalt oxide, chromium oxide or molybdenum oxide for the P3HP thermolysis of claim 1.
Claim 10
Claim 10 requires 0.01–30 parts by weight of transition-metal oxide per 100 parts by weight P3HP. Van Walsem teaches metal-catalyst concentrations of approximately 0.1–15% based on metal ion relative to dry biomass, expressly identifies individual catalyst concentrations from 0.5% through 15%, and states that higher amounts including up to 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% may be used. See ¶ [0095], p. 22.
RAITH, in the same P3HP-to-acrylic-acid thermolysis, teaches catalyst amounts of 0.01–15 wt.% based specifically on the weight of P3HP, with narrower disclosed ranges of 0.05–10%, 0.1–5%, 0.5–4% and 1.5–3.5%. See ¶ [0079], p. 6.
Although RAITH employs its molecular organic catalyst rather than Van Walsem's metal oxide, RAITH establishes the conventional catalyst-loading scale for P3HP thermolysis on the same P3HP weight basis recited by claim 10. A person of ordinary skill employing Van Walsem's oxide catalyst in RAITH's P3HP melt would have routinely optimized catalyst amount to obtain sufficient conversion while minimizing catalyst consumption and residue. The claimed broad 0.01–30 parts/100 parts P3HP encompasses the conventional catalyst-loading ranges taught by both references.
Claim 11
Claim 11 requires acrylic acid having a biocarbon content of at least 80 wt.% as measured by ASTM D6866-21. Van Walsem expressly identifies P3HP produced from renewable feedstocks and describes ASTM D6866 as the recognized method for determining the percentage of material derived from renewable sources based on carbon-14 content. See ¶¶ [0081]–[0084], particularly ¶ [0082], p. 21.
Van Walsem's Example 7 specifically prepares P3HP by fermentation using genetically modified E. coli and glucose syrup as the carbon feedstock and then pyrolyzes the P3HP to produce biobased acrylic acid. See ¶¶ [0176]–[0179], pp. 31–32. Because the carbon atoms of the acrylic-acid product originate from the renewable P3HP feed and no fossil-derived carbon is incorporated into the acrylic-acid skeleton during the elimination reaction, the resulting acrylic acid would inherently possess a biobased carbon content exceeding the claimed 80% threshold. Recitation of the “-21” edition of ASTM D6866 defines the analytical protocol and does not impart a chemical distinction to acrylic acid already derived from renewable P3HP.
Claim 12
Claim 12 requires recovering acrylic acid by distillation under reduced pressure. Van Walsem expressly teaches purification of the recovered monomer by distillation and specifically by “vacuum distillation.” See ¶ [0107], p. 23. RAITH likewise teaches P3HP thermolysis under pressure below atmospheric pressure and conventional distillation of the acrylic acid from the splitting mixture. See ¶¶ [0095]–[0099], p. 7.
It therefore would have been obvious to recover the acrylic acid from the combined process by vacuum or reduced-pressure distillation as expressly taught by the references.
Claim 13
Claim 13 requires, before melting the P3HP, polymerizing 3-hydroxypropionic acid to produce P3HP. RAITH expressly teaches that P3HP suitable for the disclosed thermolysis may be obtained by dehydrating polycondensation of 3-hydroxypropionic acid. See ¶ [0034], p. 2. RAITH further describes the molecular weight and polydispersity of P3HP obtained by that polymerization route. See ¶¶ [0034]–[0036], p. 2.
Accordingly, providing the P3HP feed by polymerization of 3HP before melting and thermolysis would have been expressly suggested by RAITH.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Walsem in view of RAITH, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Padwa et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0251349 (“Padwa”).
Padwa expressly includes P3HP among the disclosed PHA homopolymers. See ¶ [0050], p. 9. Padwa further teaches that the physical and rheological properties of polymeric materials depend on molecular weight and molecular-weight distribution. See ¶ [0033], p. 8. This is particularly relevant because RAITH independently teaches that P3HP melting behavior depends upon weight-average molecular weight and polydispersity and discloses P3HP molecular-weight ranges extending from approximately 1,000–20,000 through approximately 20,000–500,000, with polydispersities generally no greater than approximately 2.5. See RAITH ¶¶ [0034]–[0036] and [0089]–[0092].
Padwa also establishes that complex viscosity was a conventional melt-rheology parameter for PHA polymers before the effective filing date. Padwa performs an oscillatory frequency sweep from 625 rad/s down to 0.10 rad/s and collects complex viscosity as a function of measurement frequency. See ¶¶ [0171]–[0174], particularly ¶ [0173], p. 19, establishing the 625-to-0.10-rad/s frequency scan, and ¶ [0174], p. 19, identifying complex viscosity as one of the measured frequency-dependent properties. The disclosed frequency interval substantially encompasses the claimed 0.1–500 rad/s interval.
It therefore would have been obvious to characterize and control the rheology of RAITH's P3HP melt using the conventional complex-viscosity measurement taught by Padwa and to select P3HP molecular weight and molecular-weight distribution to provide a processable melt permitting homogeneous catalyst dispersion. RAITH expressly identifies homogeneous mixing of catalyst throughout the molten P3HP as an advantage of melt operation, while Padwa identifies molecular weight and molecular-weight distribution as variables controlling polymer rheology. Optimization of those known, result-effective polymer variables to obtain the desired melt viscosity would have been within ordinary skill. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d at 456.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Walsem in view of RAITH, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Abraham et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0031792 (Abraham”).
Abraham expressly teaches that 3-hydroxypropionic acid and/or its salts are generated by fermentation using known fermentation techniques. See Abraham ¶ [0020], p. 5. Abraham further exemplifies fermentation of glucose by yeast to obtain a 3HP-containing fermentation broth.
Because RAITH teaches polymerizing 3HP to produce the P3HP subsequently subjected to thermolysis, and Abraham teaches obtaining that same 3HP starting monomer by fermentation, it would have been obvious to use fermentation-derived 3HP as the feed to RAITH's P3HP polymerization. The combination merely uses a known biological source of the same chemical starting material for its established purpose.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Van Walsem in view of Noda, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0208034 (“Noda”), and Padwa et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0251349 (“Padwa”).
As established for claim 1, Van Walsem teaches P3HP as a biodegradable PHA homopolymer and teaches chemical depolymerization of P3HP by thermolysis to recover acrylic acid as the corresponding monomer product. See ¶¶ [0046], [0048], and [0053]. Van Walsem therefore supplies the chemical recovery route by which P3HP is converted to a useful monomer.
Noda supplies the additional teaching that biodegradable PHA plastic articles are suitable end-of-life feedstocks for chemical depolymerization. Noda expressly describes methods of converting at least a portion of a solid PHA article to a biodegradable liquid by contacting the article with hot alkaline solution. See Noda ¶¶ [0024]–[0029], p. 2. Noda explains that the alkaline treatment hydrolyzes the PHA polymer into monomers and possibly low-molecular-weight oligomers or small particulates. See ¶ [0040], p. 3. This is chemical depolymerization of a polymer article to lower-molecular-weight chemical products, i.e., the type of end-of-life conversion ordinarily understood as chemical recycling rather than mere mechanical reprocessing.
Noda's PHA articles expressly encompass 3-hydroxypropionate-containing polymers. Paragraph [0062] identifies 3-hydroxypropionate as one of the possible principal randomly repeating monomer units, while ¶¶ [0055]–[0061] describe the corresponding PHAs in molded articles, thermoformed articles, foams, films, sheets and fibers.
Padwa further removes any possible distinction between a PHA merely containing a 3HP comonomer and the specifically claimed poly(3-hydroxypropionate). Padwa expressly identifies P3HP itself as a PHA homopolymer, ¶ [0050], p. 9, and teaches PHA compositions and articles useful as thermoformed disposable products, containers, bottles, films, coatings, foams and related articles. See ¶¶ [0002]–[0003], p. 6.
One of ordinary skill in the art therefore would have understood before the effective filing date that: (1) P3HP is a biodegradable PHA from which disposable plastic articles may be made; (2) chemical depolymerization of used PHA articles to low-molecular-weight products was a known end-of-life treatment; and (3) Van Walsem specifically provides a chemical-depolymerization route that converts P3HP to the valuable recoverable monomer acrylic acid. It would have been obvious to employ a discarded biodegradable article containing P3HP as the P3HP feedstock for Van Walsem's thermolytic conversion, rather than requiring newly prepared or biomass-isolated P3HP, because the polymer undergoing the chemical reaction is the same P3HP and the substitution merely changes its source or physical article form.
Noda is relied upon for the recognized practice of chemically depolymerizing a biodegradable PHA article at end of life, not for requiring its alkaline-hydrolysis step to precede Van Walsem's thermolysis. Padwa establishes P3HP as the particular biodegradable PHA species suitable for articles. Van Walsem supplies the claimed chemical conversion of that P3HP to acrylic acid. The combination therefore provides an articulated reason, grounded in the prior art, to chemically recycle a P3HP-containing biodegradable article through Van Walsem's monomer-recovery process with a reasonable expectation of success.
Accordingly, claim 15 would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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.
Claims 6 & 15 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 6
Claim 6 recites, in pertinent part, that “the poly(3-hydroxypropionate) melted by the melting has a complex viscosity of 5.0 Pa·s or more and 30.0 Pa·s or less at an angular frequency of 0.1 to 500.0 rad/s.”
The metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear because the claim does not specify the temperature at which the recited complex viscosity is to be determined. Complex viscosity is a rheological property that varies with measurement conditions, particularly temperature and angular frequency. Consequently, the same poly(3-hydroxypropionate) melt can exhibit different complex-viscosity values when measured at different temperatures.
The specification confirms that temperature is an operative measurement condition. The specification states that the melted poly(3-hydroxypropionate) may have a complex viscosity of 5.0 to 30.0 Pa·s at an angular frequency of 0.1 to 500.0 rad/s. See Spec. ¶ [0025]. However, when the complex viscosity of the materials of Examples 5 and 6 was determined, the specification expressly states that the measurement was performed using a TA Instruments ARES strain-control rheometer while changing the angular frequency from 0.1 to 500.0 rad/s at a temperature of 90°C. See Spec. ¶ [0220]. The specification thereafter reports that the tested molten poly(3-hydroxypropionate) exhibited complex-viscosity values of 11.5336 to 23.2979 Pa·s over angular frequencies of 0.5 to 500 rad/s. See Spec. ¶ [0227].
Thus, the specification itself establishes that the reported complex-viscosity values are associated with a specified measurement temperature and frequency sweep. Claim 6 omits the 90°C measurement temperature or any other measurement temperature. Without such a condition, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty whether a particular molten poly(3-hydroxypropionate) having a viscosity within the claimed range under one temperature condition, but outside that range under another temperature condition, satisfies the claim.
The claim is additionally unclear as to the relationship between the recited viscosity range and the recited angular-frequency range. The phrase “a complex viscosity of 5.0 Pa·s or more and 30.0 Pa·s or less at an angular frequency of 0.1 to 500.0 rad/s” does not clearly establish whether:
• the complex viscosity must remain within 5.0 to 30.0 Pa·s at every angular frequency throughout the entire 0.1 to 500.0 rad/s range;
• the viscosity limitation is satisfied if a value within 5.0 to 30.0 Pa·s occurs at any one frequency within the stated range;
• the limitation represents an average, maximum, minimum, or other value obtained from a frequency sweep; or
• some other relationship between viscosity and angular frequency is intended.
These interpretations define materially different scopes. The uncertainty is particularly apparent because, although the measurement procedure of paragraph [0220] states that angular frequency varied from 0.1 to 500.0 rad/s, paragraph [0227] characterizes the experimentally confirmed viscosity range as applying from 0.5 to 500 rad/s.
Accordingly, because the claim does not identify the measurement temperature and does not clearly define how the 5.0 to 30.0 Pa·s viscosity limitation is to be applied across the 0.1 to 500.0 rad/s angular-frequency range, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of claim 6 with reasonable certainty.
The rejection may be overcome by amending the claim, consistent with the original disclosure, to specify the temperature and the manner in which the viscosity limitation applies to the stated angular-frequency range. For example, if consistent with Applicant's intended scope, the claim could expressly identify measurement at 90°C and state whether the viscosity range is required throughout the recited frequency sweep or at a particular angular frequency.
Claim 15
Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the method for producing acrylic acid recycles biodegradable articles comprising the poly(3-hydroxypropionate).”
The limitation is indefinite because the expression “recycles biodegradable articles” states a desired result or purpose without clearly defining the relationship between the biodegradable article and the thermal-decomposition step required by claim 1. As presently written, it is unclear whether claim 15 requires the biodegradable article itself to be subjected to the thermal-decomposition step, whether poly(3-hydroxypropionate) must first be separated or recovered from the biodegradable article and subsequently subjected to thermal decomposition, or whether some other recycling operation satisfies the limitation.
The specification demonstrates that these distinctions are material. Paragraph [0039] states generally that the method for producing acrylic acid may recycle biodegradable articles comprising poly(3-hydroxypropionate). See Spec. ¶ [0039]. Paragraph [0040] provides the operative disclosure, identifying exemplary biodegradable articles such as plastic bags, fibers, fabrics, food containers, toothbrushes, films, fishing nets, and packaging materials, and explaining that a biodegradable article containing poly(3-hydroxypropionate) can be thermally decomposed to recover acrylic acid monomer, thereby recycling the biodegradable article. Paragraph [0040] further states that the recovered acrylic acid monomer may subsequently be polymerized to produce biodegradable plastic for reuse in biodegradable articles. See Spec. ¶ [0040].
The specification therefore describes at least a specific chemical-recycling route in which the P3HP-containing biodegradable article itself is subjected to thermal decomposition and acrylic acid monomer is recovered. Claim 15, however, does not recite that relationship. Instead, the claim merely states that the method “recycles” the article. The disclosure in paragraph [0040] cannot be read into the claim to supply a process limitation that the claim itself does not distinctly require.
Because claim 15 depends from claim 1, claim 1 requires thermal decomposition of “a poly(3-hydroxypropionate),” but does not require that the poly(3-hydroxypropionate) be present in a biodegradable article when the thermal decomposition occurs. Thus, under one reasonable reading, P3HP could first be removed from an article and thereafter thermally decomposed; under another, the article containing P3HP must itself be placed into the thermal-decomposition process. Claim 15 does not establish which process falls within its scope.
Accordingly, the functional expression “recycles biodegradable articles comprising the poly(3-hydroxypropionate),” when considered together with claim 1 and the specification, does not provide a person of ordinary skill with reasonable certainty as to what must be done to the biodegradable article to satisfy the claim. Claim 15 is therefore indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The rejection may be overcome by amending claim 15, consistent with the original disclosure, to expressly identify the relationship between the biodegradable article and the thermal-decomposition step. For example, if Applicant intends the embodiment described in paragraph [0040], the claim could specify that the thermal decomposition comprises thermally decomposing a biodegradable article comprising poly(3-hydroxypropionate) to recover acrylic acid.
The paragraph citations are supported by the published disclosure: the viscosity range appears at ¶ [0025], the actual rheometer protocol specifies 90°C at ¶ [0220], and the experimental conclusion is at ¶ [0227]. The biodegradable-article disclosure is expressly set out at ¶¶ [0039]–[0040].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH D CARR whose telephone number is (571)272-0637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10:30 am -6:30 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, Renee Claytor can be reached at 572-272-8394. 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.
/DEBORAH D CARR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691
Prosecution Insights