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 .
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
1. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 18, 20, 23-25, 29-32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by German Patent Publication (DE102015102518) to Lauer (cited by Applicant).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lauer discloses at least one outer surface (eraser), wherein the outer surface is at least partly coated by a coating comprising a polysaccharide (starch that includes polysaccharide; See abstract and English translation).
Regarding claim 2, Lauer discloses that the coating comprising a polysaccharide at least partially forms the outer surface of the eraser (starch that includes polysaccharide; See abstract and English translation).
Regarding claim 3, Lauer discloses that the polysaccharide comprises a cellulose or a starch, and in particular a starch (See abstract and English translation).
Regarding claim 18, Lauer wherein the polysaccharide comprises a starch (See abstract and English translation).
Regarding claim 20, Lauer discloses that the coating comprises substantially no or no talc and/or mica (based on disclosure it appears no talc/and or mica).
Regarding claim 23, Lauer discloses that the starch comprises amylose and amylopectin (See English translation).
Regarding claim 24, Lauer discloses the starch comprises between about 5 mol % to about 90 mol % amylose, relative to the total molar amount of starch (See English translation).
Regarding claim 25, Lauer discloses wherein the molar ratio between the amylose and the amylopectin is between about 1:19 to about 9:1 (See English translation).
Regarding claim 29, Lauer discloses that the eraser comprises one or more polymers and wherein the one or more polymers comprises a thermoplastic polymer, an elastomer and/or a thermoplastic elastomer (See English translation).
Regarding claim 30, Lauer discloses the eraser comprises one or more polymers and wherein the one or more polymer comprises a thermoplastic vulcanizate; and/or wherein the one or more polymer comprises a styrenic block copolymer (See English translation).
Regarding claim 31, Lauer discloses the eraser comprises one or more polymers and wherein the one or more polymer comprises polyethylene and/or polyvinylchloride (See English translation).
Regarding claim 32, Lauer discloses that the eraser comprises one or more fillers (such as amylopectin and glucose).
Regarding claim 34, Lauer discloses an eraser according to claim 1 (See attached English Translation).
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
2. 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.
Claims 19, 21-22, 26-28 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Patent Publication (DE102015102518) to Lauer (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 19, Lauer teaches the existence of polysaccharide as a coating but is silent regarding the coating comprises Iess than 5 wt.-% of talc and/or mica, relative to the total weight of the coating. However, absent criticality in the specification making up less 5 wt-% of polysaccharide would have been obvious to try since such a change or modification in the quantity of an existing part requires routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 21, Lauer teaches the existence of polysaccharide but is silent regarding that the coating comprises at least 70 wt.-% of the polysaccharide, relative to the total weight of the coating excluding water. However, absent criticality in the specification making the weight at least 70 wt-% of polysaccharide would have been obvious to try since such a change or modification in the quantity of an existing part requires routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 22, Lauer teaches the existence of starch but is silent regarding that the coating comprises at least 70 wt.-% of starch, relative to the total weight of the coating. However, absent criticality in the specification making the weight at least 70 wt-% of polysaccharide would have been obvious to try since such a change or modification in the quantity of an existing part requires routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 26, Lauer teaches regarding that the coating is in the form of particles but is silent regarding that the particles are round, oval and/or kidney shaped. However, it would have been obvious to try include the shape of the particles as round since a change in shape would have obvious for manufacturing purposes.
Regarding claim 27, Lauer is silent regarding the particles have a D50 between about 1 pm to about 30 pm. However, absent criticality it would have been obvious to change particle size since such change only requires routine skill in the art for manufacturing purposes.
Regarding claim 28, Lauer teaches the existence of the eraser the shape of the eraser is cylindrical. However, the change in shape However, it would have been obvious to try include a change in shape since a change in shape would have obvious for manufacturing purposes.
Regarding 33, Lauer teaches the existence of the eraser composite but is silent regarding that the eraser comprises an outer surface and wherein the eraser comprises between about 0.04 mg/cm2 to about 1.85 mg/cm2 of the coating on the at least one outer surface. However, absent criticality in the specification making the eraser include between 0.04 mg/cm2 to about 1.85 mg/cm2 of the coating of the outer surface would have been obvious to try for manufacturing purposes.
Conclusion
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. EST.
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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
MICHAEL DEANGILO. JENNINGS
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MICHAEL D JENNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights