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 with traverse of claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 8-12-25 is acknowledged. However, the Restriction has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-6 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.
Applicants claim 1 may be interpreted in multiple reasonable ways. The claim does not require that the “other hydroxyalkanoate units’ present in copolymer (A) be different from that of the “other hydroxyalkanoate units” present in copolymer (B). Accordingly, copolymers (A) and (B) may be interpreted as comprising identical hydroxyalkanoate moieties, thereby making the distinction between copolymers (A) and (B) unclear.
Furthermore, claim 1 does not specify whether the “other hydroxyalkanoate units” are all identical to each other or whether multiple different hydroxyalkanoate moieties may be present within a single copolymer, whether (A) or (B). As result, it is unclear whether the claim is limited to copolymers containing a single additional hydroxyalkanoate unit or encompasses copolymers containing multiple different hydroxyalkanoate units.
Because the claimed language has multiple reasonable interpretations regarding the composition and distinction of copolymers (A) and (B), the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clearly defined.
Moreover, claims 1-6 are interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with MPEP§ 2111 and the following 35 USC § 103 rejection is set forth below:
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ES2503552T3 see abstract, page 1 line 32, page 2 lines 1-12; page 4 lines 1-18; page 17 line 27, page 19 lines 16 and 20 and pages 20 line 42 through page 21 line 10 and examples in view of EP2878623B1 (see abstract,[0004], [0008] ).
Applicant’s claim 1 is directed to:
A blow-molded article comprising:
a reaction product of a poly(3-hydroxyalkanoate) resin component and an organic peroxide,
wherein the poly(3-hydroxyalkanoate) resin component comprises
a copolymer (A) which is a copolymer of 3-hydroxybutyrate units and other hydroxyalkanoate units and in which a content of the other hydroxyalkanoate units is from 1 to 6 mol%
and a copolymer (B) which is a copolymer of 3-hydroxybutyrate units and other hydroxyalkanoate units and in which a content of the other hydroxyalkanoate units is 24 mol% or more, in the poly(3-hydroxyalkanoate) resin component,
a proportion of the copolymer (A) is from 30 to 70 wt% and a proportion of the copolymer (B) is from 30 to 70 wt%, and an amount of the organic peroxide is from 0.01 to 0.8 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the poly(3-hydroxyalkanoate) resin component.
The primary reference, ES2503552T3 discloses polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA) compositions comprising poly(3-hydoxybutyrate-co-hydoxyalkanoate) polymers, wherein 3-hydroxybutyrate repeating units and other hydroxyalkanoate units are incorporated as comonomers. See abstract, page 1 line 32, page 2 lines 1-12; page 4 lines 1-18. ES2503552T3 shows that changes in hydroxyalkanoate comonomer content within a poly(3- hydroxybutyrate)- based copolymer directly affect the stiffness, melt strength and processability such that the comonomer content may be selected to adjust processing behavior and mechanical performance of the polymer. See page 16 lines 31-39. ES2503552T3 further teaches that modifying such PHA polymers using organic peroxides to cause branching and crosslinking, which improves the melt strength and processing behavior. See page 17 line 27, page 17 line 27, page 19 lines 16 and 20 ; pages 20 lines 42 and 43 and page 21 line 10. The reference also discloses that articles formed from these compositions may be films, sheets, fibers, injection molded articles, thermoformed articles, or blow-molded articles. See page 1 Description and page 2 lines 31-32.
Although, ES2503552T3 does not expressly disclose a polymer composition comprising multiple distinct polymer components used to provide improved mechanic al and processing properties nor the specific numerical range of 1 to 6 mol% for the other hydroxyalkanoate units, the reference makes clear that adjustment of comonomer content is used to control or improve processing and mechanical performance. See abstract, page 1 line 32, page 2 lines 1-12 and pages 4 lines 1-18.
EP 28978623B1 discloses multimodal polymer systems (multiple distinct polymer components) used to achieve the desired mechanical and processing properties such as stiffness, melt strength, impact resistance and processability particularly in blow -molding applications. EP 2878623B1 teaches that such multimodal systems employ polymers having different molecular and compositional characteristics in order to achieve a desired improved of properties.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated combine the teachings of ES2503552T3 with EP 28978623B to employ multiple PHA copolymer components within a single resin system in order to control stiffness and processability for blow-molding application. Moreover, selecting a copolymer having a lower content of other hydroxyalkanoate units within a poly(3-hydroxybutyrate) based copolymer system, such as within the claimed range of 1 to 6 mol%, would have been a matter of routine optimization of known polymer parameters with predicable results since the primary reference teaches that the presence and amount of each comonomer unit affects material properties including to adjust stiffness, melt strength and processability.
Claim 3 is directed to the blow-molded article according to claim 1, wherein the other hydroxyalkanoate units are 3-hydroxyhexanoate units. In addition to the discussion for claim 1, note ES2503552T3 page 40 lines 5,11 and 17.
Claim 4 is directed to the blow-molded article according to claim 1, produced by extrusion blow molding or one-step injection blow molding. In addition to the discussion for claim 1, note EP623 paragraphs [0003], [0007],[0027].
Claim 5 is directed to a method for producing the blow-molded article according to claim 1, the method comprising: molding a resin composition containing the reaction product by extrusion blow molding or one-step injection blow molding. In addition to the discussion for claim 1, note EP623 paragraphs [0003], [0007],[0027].
Claim 6 is directed to the method according to claim 5, wherein a molding cycle time is 30 seconds or less.
In addition to the discussion for claim 1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since it is well-established that merely selecting proportions and ranges is not patentable absent a showing of criticality. In re Becket, 33 U.S.P.Q. 33 (C.C.P.A. 1937). In re Russell, 439 F.2d 1228, 169 U.S.P.Q. 426 (C.C.P.A. 1971). One would have been motivated to employ particular amounts and/or parameters as known in the art, since, the primary reference discusses the generally use of such and generally, it is prima facie obvious to determine workable or optimal values within a prior art disclosure through the application of routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); and In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (CA Fed 2003).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ES2503552T3 see abstract, page 1 line 32, page 2 lines 1-12; page 4 lines 1-18; page 17 line 27, page 19 lines 16 and 20 and pages 20 line 42 through page 21 line 10 and examples in view of EP2878623B1 (see abstract,[0004], [0008] ); further in view of Rosato, D.V., Rosato, D.V. (1990). Blow Molding. In: Plastics Processing Data Handbook. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9658-4_4.
Claim 2 is directed to the blow-molded article according to claim 1, wherein in a cross-section of the blow-molded article that is perpendicular to a blowing direction, a maximum thickness difference of the blow-molded article is 10% or less of an average thickness of the blow-molded article.
The ES2503552T3 reference teaches improving melt strength and flow characteristics of PHA compositions through peroxide-induced reactive modification which directly affects melt stability during forming. EP2878623B1 teaches molding application to improve stability and processing behavior thereby reducing defects associated with uneven material distribution.
Neither ES2503552T3 nor EP2878623B1 discloses the limitation regarding the thickness as claimed. Note however, the thickness represents a known and expected quality parameter in blow molding processes. For example, note that Rosato discloses controlling factors during blow molding such as thickness and are conventionally designed to exhibit substantially uniform wall thickness in order to ensure mechanical integrity and consistent performance. Controlling wall thickness within approximately + 10% and other values would be a routine manufacturing objective depending on the desired result and achieved through known control methods such as those disclosed in the tertiary reference Rosato on page 20 under the heading “Weight, Thickness and Size Controls”. See also Table of Contents under extrusion Blow Molding.
In conclusion, in view of the above, there appears to be no significant difference
between the reference(s) and that which is claimed by applicant(s). Any differences not
specifically mentioned appear to be conventional. Consequently, the claimed invention
cannot be deemed as unobvious and accordingly is unpatentable.
Information Disclosure Statement
Note that any future and/or present information disclosure statements must comply with 37 CFR § 1.98(b), which requires a list of the publications to include: the author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date and place of publication to be submitted for consideration by the Office.
Improper Claim Dependency
Prior to allowance, any dependent claims should be rechecked for proper dependency if independent claims are cancelled.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRESSA M BOYKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1069. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5:30.
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, Heidi Kelley can be reached at 571 270-1831. 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.
/Terressa Boykin/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765